Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Bristol Corporation Bill (by Order),

Second Reading deferred till Friday.

Guildford Corporation Bill (by Order),

Metropolitan Railway Bill (by Order),

Second Reading deferred till Thursday.

Teignmouth and Shaldon Bridge Bill (by Order),

Read a Second time, and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

RUBBER (EXPORTS TO UNITED STATES).

Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: 1.
asked the President of the Board of Trade what amount of rubber was exported to the United States of America last year from British possessions, and the average price paid c.i.f. New York?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister): As the answer involves a table of figures, I propose, with the concurrence of my hon. Friend, to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

The following statement shows the quantity, value, and average value per lb. of the imports of crude rubber and milk of rubber into the United States from the United Kingdom, Canada and British East Indies respectively during the 11 months January to November, 1925, as recorded in the official trade returns of
the United States. Corresponding particulars for the month of December, 1925 will not be available for several weeks:

Country whence imported.
January—November, 1925.


Quantity.
Value.*
Average Value, cents per lb.*



Lbs.
$



United Kingdom.
78,106,955
41,907,673
53.65


Canada
317,235
129,212
40.73


British East Indies.
526,959,042
238,166,880
45.20


Total of above.
605,383,232
280,203,765
46.29


*The c.i.f. value New York is not given in the Official trade returns of the United States. The values given above are stated to represent "the foreign value or the export value, whichever is higher, that is the market value or the price at which the merchandise, at the time of exportation to the United States, is offered for sale in the principal markets of the country from which exported, including the cost of containers or coverings and all expenses (including any export tax) incident to placing the merchandise in condition ready for shipment to the United States, as defined in section 402 of the Tariff Act of 1922."

BRITISH INDUSTRIES FAIR.

Mr. NEIL MACLEAN: 9.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether any firms exhibiting at the British Industries Fair this year have made their participation in the exhibition conditional on an inquiry into their industry under the Safeguarding of Industries Act?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: No, Sir.

LEIPZIG FAIR.

Mr. MACLEAN: 10.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can state the number of British firms and American firms, respectively, who have rented space for exhibition purposes at the Leipzig Fair in February and March this year?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I regret that the information asked for by the hon. Member is not available.

Mr. MACLEAN: May I ask why this information is not available?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I am afraid it is not available, because the Department have not got it.

Mr. MACLEAN: As this is a World Fair, which has been held for the last 600 years, and buyers are there from all parts of the world, should not the right hon. Gentleman's Department make itself familiar with the facts as to whether this country and its products are being suitably represented there, and advertised in foreign countries?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: We have done a good deal to advertise British products in connection with our own Fairs. I hope to get from our Consul at Leipzig the report which is always rendered about the Leipzig Fair. I think it will probably include the information for which the hon. Member asks, and I shall be glad to let him have any information that we can get.

Mr. MACLEAN: As we have a Consul there, and as this question has been on the Order Paper for some days, could not the information have been obtained, as all the names of those who are exhibiting at Leipzig are already known?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The Question on the Paper asks whether I have the information, and I am told that the Department of Overseas Trade have not got it. The hon. Member also asks whether it is not desirable that British products should be exhibited. We cannot, however, make people exhibit, and I think that British manufacturers are probably themselves the best judges in the matter.

Mr. MACLEAN: I have asked the number of those who are exhibiting.

FOREIGN BRICKS.

Colonel WOODCOCK: 12.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he can give the number of foreign bricks imported into this country during the last three years?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The number of bricks imported into Great Britain and Northern Ireland, registered as consigned from foreign countries, amounted to 7,372,000 in 1923, to 85,015,000 in 1924, and to 159,002,0000.

Mr. HARRIS: Has there been a request that this industry should come under the safeguarding of induries Act?

Captain GEE: Could not the answers to this and many other questions be obtained by Members themselves, if they would refer to the books which are to be obtained free at the Vote Office, and so save public expense?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I should indeed be glad if hon. Members would do that.

Colonel WOODCOCK: Is it not worth while calling attention to the fact that these bricks could be made in this country, and so provide a tremendous lot of work for people who are unemployed?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I am under the impression that most of the brickworks in this country are pretty fully occupied.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: On a point of Order. Are not questions supposed to be put for the purpose of obtaining information, and not for the purpose of drawing attention to alleged irregularities or otherwise?

Mr. SPEAKER: I hope so, but I am not always sure.

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: Does not the experience of the London County Council show that, if it were not for the import of foreign bricks, they would not be able to build houses?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I should require notice of that question, but, even if I had notice, I do not think it is a question that I could answer.

RUBBER EXPORTS (RESTRICTION).

Mr. HARMSWORTH: 18.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether the Stevenson rubber restriction scheme has been modified in any way and, if so, for what reason, and whether he will give an estimate of the financial result of any change?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Amery): The system under which the percentage of rubber exports at the minimum rate of duty was raised or lowered at quarterly intervals according to the average London price of rubber has been modified in respect of the three months beginning 1st February. The decision to increase the percentage by 15 instead of 10 for that
quarter was taken in order to ensure some prospect of relief to manufacturers who found themselves faced with the necessity of buying rubber at the excessively high price temporarily ruling. As regards the last part of the question, if my hon. Friend has in mind the effect on the spot price of rubber, I fear that too many factors enter into the question to enable me to give any estimate of the effect of this particular change.

OIL AND MOTOR SPIRIT IMPORTS.

Mr. G. HALL: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will give the

Description.
1910.
1920.
1923.
1924.
1925.



(i) Quantities Imported.


Petroleum:
Thousand gallons.
Thousand gallons.
Thousand gallons.
Thousand gallons.
Thousand gallons.


Crude
187
4,180
334,618
464,363
561,621


Refined:







Lamp Oil
138,828
160,952
144,129
124,678
141,649


Motor Spirit
55,049
206,911
327,234
422,311
404,875


Spirit, other than Motor Spirit.
240
14
2,357
3,055
6,048


Lubricating Oil
58,561
105,915
82,223
101,747
85,473


Gas Oil
57,507
53,565
70,746
67,906
72,635


Fuel Oil
34,363
347,771
363,738
385,582
334,402


Other sorts
734
72
65
1,269
170


Total
345,469
879,380
1,325,110
1,570,911
1,606,873



(ii) Declared Value.


Petroleum:
Thousand £'s.
Thousand £'s.
Thousand £'s.
Thousand £'s.
Thousand £'s.


Crude
3
236
5,270
7,740
8,843


Refined:


Lamp Oil
1,851
11,785
3,150
2,958
2,928


Motor Spirit
1,341
23,276
15,827
17,846
16,828


Spirit, other than Motor Spirit.
5
3
85
120
218


Lubricating Oil
1,706
15,070
4,746
5,869
4,740


Gas Oil
478
3,351
1,085
1,210
1,276


Fuel Oil
262
12,818
4,789
5,604
4,654


Other sorts
17
14
9
77
27


Total
5,663
66,553
34,961
41,424
39,514


Prior to April, 1923, these figures include imports into the Irish Free State from countries outside the British Isles.

Oral Answers to Questions — MERCANTILE MARINE.

ALIEN SEAMEN.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 3.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the approximate number of aliens at

total oil and motor spirit imports in the several ascertainable grades for the years 1910, 1920, 1923, 1924, and 1925, respectively?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: If the hon. Member will allow me, I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT the figures for which he asks.

Following are the figures:

The imports into the United Kingdom of the various descriptions of petroleum oils and spirits in each of the years specified were as follow:

present employed in merchant ships under the British flag?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Information as to the number of alien seamen employed in the British Mercantile Marine
was contained in an answer given to the Noble Lord the Member for Southampton (Lord Apsley) on the 17th December, 1924, a copy of which I am sending to the hon. and gallant Member, with additions to bring the statistics up to date.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: May I ask what steps the right hon. Gentleman is taking to discourage the wholesale employment of aliens in British ships, in view of the unemployment among British seamen?

Mr. SPEAKER: That hardly arises out of the Question on the Paper.

DECK CARGOES (TIMBER).

Major MacANDREW: 4.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he intends to carry out the recommendations of the Merchant Shipping Advisory Committee to abandon the British rules dealing with the carriage by ships of deck cargoes of timber and to substitute others on Continental lines?

Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: 17.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether the Government have come to any decision regarding the necessity for formulating new Regulations to enable modern types of cargo vessels to carry timber on deck in the winter months to a greater extent than is at present permitted, in view of the competition by foreign lines which are not subject to the same restrictions as exist in the case of British ships?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The recommendations of the Merchant Shipping Advisory Committee on the subject of timber deck cargoes are now being considered by the Board of Trade. I am unable to say at present to what extent the Committee's recommendations will be adopted.

THAMES (DUMPING BY HOPPERS).

Mr. ALBERY: 8.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the recent collisions near the Black Deep, at the mouth of the Thames, he can now give any information as to changing the present arrangements for clumping by hoppers at the mouth of the Thames?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The collisions to which the hon. Member refers were some 11 to 12 miles away from the
area in which dredgings are deposited. The position with regard to this deposit area is as stated in the answer which I gave to the hon. Member on 1st December.

WIRELESS OPERATORS (WAGES DISPUTE).

Mr. GRIFFITHS: 11.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the steamer "Essex Heath" was recently in grave peril at sea; that the vessel was forced to abandon her voyage from Port Talbot to New York; that she had to put back to Queenstown owing to the damage sustained in the heavy weather; that she was not able to communicate her plight; that the captain was compelled, against his will, to proceed to sea without a wireless operator; and that the Board of Trade exempted the ship from the provisions of the Merchant Shipping (Wireless Telegraphy) Act, 1919; what was the nature of that exemption; and under what Statute was the exemption given?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I am aware that the steamer "Essex Heath," on a voyage from Port Talbot to New York, had to put back to Queenstown owing to damage sustained in heavy weather. In a deposition taken from the master by an officer of the Irish Free State Government, the former stated that he decided that it would be prudent to turn the vessel round and make for the nearest port. He, therefore, put into Queenstown in order to make the ship seaworthy again. No wireless operator was carried during the voyage in question. The master's deposition makes no mention of unwillingness to proceed to sea. As regards the latter part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Camberwell Nortn. (Mr. Ammon) on the 22nd December last.

Mr. GRIFFITHS: I do not know what was the nature of the reply given to the hon. Member for North Camberwell, but I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether we are to assume, from this reply and the exemption given to the shipowners, that he considers that the interest of the shipowners is of greater importance than the lives of the seafaring men and passengers?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: No, Sir—

Mr. SPEAKER: We have had that point several times.

Mr. AMMON: Was not the reply to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred rather misleading, inasmuch as the Act makes no reference to wireless operators, but only to certain ships being exempted from the necessity of carrying the apparatus?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: If the hon. Gentleman is challenging the legality of anything done by His Majesty's Government, that must be done in the Law Courts, where alone an authoritative pronouncement can be obtained. If he is referring to the administrative action which His Majesty's Government have taken, that was taken after full consideration, and following precedents which have been set up on two previous occasions.

Mr. AMMON: I am challenging the accuracy of the right hon. Gentleman's reply as based on the Act to which he referred.

Mr. SPEAKER: That is a matter for Debate.

Oral Answers to Questions — SAFEGUARDING OF INDUSTRIES.

WORSTED COMMITTEE.

Major CRAWFURD: 6.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, since a representative of the general public was allowed to appear before the Worsted Committee and put the case for the ultimate consumer, it may now be understood that evidence of this kind can be heard at their discretion by all future committees appointed under the safeguarding scheme?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: As I have previously stated in this House, the admissibility or otherwise of any evidence which may be tendered in any case is a matter to be determined by the Committee concerned, in the light of the particular circumstances, and I am not disposed to interfere with the discretion of the Committee.

Major CRAWFURD: Does the right hon. Gentleman think it right that there should be a differentiation between one class of consumers and another in this matter? Do the Government think it right?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I think it right to give the Committee a discretion.

Major CRAWFURD: May I ask if the right hon. Gentleman will kindly give me an answer to my question, which, surely, is a very important question? It is this: Does he think it right that, in an important matter of this kind, which affects the prices of commodities, one class of consumers should be favoured at the expense of another class?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Perhaps the hon. and gallant Member will kindly look at the answer which I have already given.

BRUSH INDUSTRY.

Captain WALTER SHAW: 15.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether any application has been made by the brush industry with a view to receiving protection under the Safeguarding of Industries Act; if such application has been made in the matter now under investigation before a committee; and, if so, what progress has been made?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: A committee was appointed to consider an application from the Brushmaking Industry, and its report was published in December last.

Oral Answers to Questions — HEALTH RESORTS (PROPAGANDA).

Sir WALTER de FRECE: 7.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in conjunction with the buy British goods movement, he will associate with it propaganda in favour of home seaside and health resorts, since they prosper on the amenities they have to offer and which they largely produce themselves?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Sir Kingsley Wood): I have been asked to reply. My right hon. Friend is of the opinion that propaganda in favour of home seaside and health resorts can best be left to municipal and private enterprise. The local authorities concerned have powers to advertise under the Health Resorts and Watering Places Act, 1921.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Does not the hon. Gentleman think it desirable that it should be brought to
the notice of his colleagues in the Cabinet that they should not set an example by spending their winters on the Riviera?

Sir HARRY BRITTAIN: Will not my hon. Friend at the same time try to encourage home resorts to make themselves as attractive as some of those on the Continent?

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH FILM INDUSTRY.

Mr. RAMSDEN: 13.
asked the President of the Board of Trade what steps he is taking to assist the British film industry, and whether any legislation is proposed?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I hope to be in a position to make a statement on this subject shortly.

Sir W. de FRECE: 21.
asked the President of the Boa-rd of Trade whether, before deciding that financial assistance should be promised in regard to the proposed national film studio in Brighton, he will take into consideration, before giving official sanction to such proposal, the superior claims of many other seaside resorts?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I have no funds at my disposal from which a grant can be given to a proposal of the kind mentioned.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA.

ARMY CANTEEN BOARD.

Brigadier-General BROOKE: 22.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether a canteen board for the British troops in India has been instituted; and whether the rebates therefrom compare favourably with the rebates units received from the previous system of employing civilian contractors?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Major Earl Winterton): I have been asked to reply to this question. The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The Army Canteen Board (India) pays to unit funds a fixed rebate of 7½ per cent. of cash and messing purchases. Under the previous system the rebate varied according, to the arrangements made between the unit and the contractor in each case. A comparison
is therefore difficult. I am not aware of any evidence that the present system is less favourable in this respect in the average of cases.

NAVAL FORCE.

Colonel GRETTON: 46.
asked the Prime Minister if the Committee of Imperial Defence and the Admiralty fully considered the establishment of an Indian naval force, as recently announced by the Viceroy, before that announcement was made; and if the Committee of Imperial Defence and the Admiralty advised the course which it is proposed to adopt?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin): The Admiralty have been consulted throughout and were represented on the Committee which examined this question in India. They are in full agreement with the general scheme, subject to further discussion of one or two particulars.

Colonel GRETTON: Do I understand that the Committee of Imperial Defence was not consulted?

The PRIME MINISTER: The Admiralty were satisfied that it was not necessary to lay it before the Committee of Imperial Defence. Of course, it is a matter that can be raised on the India Office Vote or the Civil Service Vote.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: May I ask whether the one or two particulars about which agreement will be come to did not include the question of allowing Indians to hold the King's Commission?

The PRIME MINISTER: I must ask for notice of that question.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY.

ROYAL SMALL ARMS FACTORY (PENSIONS).

Colonel APPLIN: 23.
asked the Secretary of State for War under what Act of Parliament pensions were paid to the workers in the Royal Small Arms Factory at Enfield Lock in 1861 and from the 4th June, 1870, to 31st December, 1889; why these pensions ceased at the latter date; and under what authority the Act granting these pensions become inoperative?

The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Sir Laming Worthington-Evans): Workmen who entered the Royal Small Arms Factory after 17th December, 1861, were
no longer entitled to pension, under the Regulations made under the Superannuation Act, 1859. Owing, however, to a failure to bring this condition effectively to notice, men who entered between 17th December, 1861, and 4th June, 1870, were considered to have had a reasonable expectation of receiving pension, and a special Act was passed, the Superannuation Act, 1890, to enable pensions to be granted to men entering between those dates in respect of their service rendered up to 31st December, 1889.

Colonel APPLIN: Will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that pensions for the workers in small arms and other ordnance factories will be considered?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I cannot make any promise that pensions will be granted.

STAFF COLLEGE, CAMBERLEY (ADMISSION).

Mr. BASIL PETO: 26.
asked the Secretary of State for War the number of entrants for the approaching examination for admission to the Staff College at Camberley; the number of admissions by pass and by nomination that are available; and the number of these places that are reserved for officers in the British Army who pass or obtain nominations, respectively?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON - EVANS: There are 440 entrants for the approaching examination for admission to the Staff College at Camberley. There are 34 vacancies open for competition, of which 22 are for British Army officers, and about 16 vacancies to be filled by nomination, of which 10 are for British Army officers.

Mr. PETO: Does the right hon. Gentleman say there are only 440 entrants?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON - EVANS: Yes, 440 entrants for the approaching examination.

Captain GEE: In view of the large number of applicants desiring to go into the Staff College, will the right hon. Gentleman seek to increase the number of vacancies by granting facilities for larger colleges?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: It is a very difficult matter to increase the accommodation at Camberley.

GUN FIRING, GRAIN ISLAND.

Mr. BARNES: 27.
asked the Secretary of State for War what changes have been made in gun practice at Southend; if he is aware that firing from the new base is causing annoyance to the residents at Leigh-on-Sea; and whether he can stop this nuisance, which has become prejudicial to the health of invalids and nervous people of the district?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The disturbance to which the hon. Member refers is due to the experimental firing of guns from Grain Island. Firing from Grain Island has taken place for very many years; but with the increased calibre of certain guns, the disturbance from the concussion has increased. A series of experiments has been made to ascertain the atmospheric conditions most favourable for reducing the effect of the concussion, and every effort is made to carry out the firing when such conditions prevail. But in the interests of the State it is impossible to place any absolute restrictions on the firing or to discontinue it altogether.

Mr. BARNES: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the question of transferring the firing to Colchester.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: There is no suitable range at Colchester.

RECORD OFFICES.

Colonel ENGLAND: 25.
asked the Secretary of State for War the total cost of administration of the Army record offices for the year ended 31st March 1925; the number of officers-in-charge of record offices and the total amount of salaries paid to them for the financial year 1924–25; the number of assistant officers and the total amount of salaries paid to them for the financial year 1924–25; and the number of civilian clerks, superintending clerks, deputy-superintending clerks, and clerks, and the salaries paid to them for the financial year 1924–25?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: As the answer contains a number of figures, I will, with the hon. and gallant Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

The audited figures of expenditure for the financial year 1924–25 are not yet
available, but, on present information, the details are approximately as follows:

NET COST of Army Record Offices (Staff, Office Expenses and Standing Charges)—


£142,000.


—
Number.
Total Pay and Allowances, Salary or Wages.




£


Officers in charge of Records.
21 including 4 borne on regimental establishments).
24,000


Assistant Officers
30
9,500


Superintending Clerks.
22
11,000


Duputy Superintending Clerks.
34


Clerks
520
75,500

VEREY LIGHT CARTRIDGES.

Lord HENRY CAVENDISH BENTINCK: 30.
asked the Secretary of State for War how many millions of the Verey light cartridges, some of which caused the explosion at Slade's Green on 18th February, 1924, when 13 girls were killed, still remain to be broken down; whether, as they are now being broken down at the same place, but in a Government factory, he is aware that the whole of these cartridges were condemned by the arbitrator during the recent case in reference to the explosion as unsafe to move, store, or handle without risk to life or property?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Ronald McNeill): I have been asked to answer this question. As the result of a recent legal arbitration approximately 6¼ million Verey light cartridges were held by the arbitrator to be unsafe to store, handle or move. Of these approximately half a million have, since the date of the arbitration, been broken down by employés of the Surplus Stores Liquidation Department, under special regulations which have been approved by the Home Office. The accident referred to, which took place on the 18th February, 1924, occurred when breaking down was being carried out by a contractor, and under conditions which materially differ from the present system of breaking down. The alternative to
breaking down the cartridges where they are stored would be to move them by lorry, put them on barges, and dump them at sea. This alternative would involve much greater risk of damage to life and property than breaking down on the spot under the present stringent regulations.

Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: Does the right hon. Gentleman consider this regulation adequate to safeguard the lives of the workers?

Mr. McNEILL: I have looked very closely into the matter as far as I could, and I see that the same expert who gave evidence before the arbitrator to the effect quoted in the question said that, if these regulations were followed, there ought to be no reasonable danger of accident.

Captain GEE: How is it they have 6,000,000 Verey light cartridges to destroy, and yet in the last six months of the War it was almost impossible to get them in France?

Mr. McNEILL: No, I cannot answer that question.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

WAR OFFICE: (SALARIES).

Mr. THURTLE: 29.
asked the Secretary of State for War the number of officers employed at the War Office at salaries of £500 or over, and the number of such officers employed before the War?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The number of officers at the War Office whose pay and allowances at post-War rates amount to £500 or over is 265, as compared with 156 at pre-War rates in 1914.

OVERTIME (CLERICAL GRADES).

Mr. BRIANT: 67.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury if overtime is paid for in Government Departments to the clerical staff and, if so, in which Department,; and if any record is kept of overtime actually worked in Departments for which no payment is made?

Mr. McNEILL: With the exception of the higher clerical grades, overtime is payable to the clerical grades, including temporary officers, in all Departments. The attendance of all officers is recorded departmentally, but I have no available
collected statistics showing the amount of overtime worked by classes whose salaries are inclusive of overtime.

MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE (FISHERIES SECTION).

Sir F. MEYER: 81.
asked the Minister of Agriculture the number of persons employed and the total salaries paid by the fisheries section of his Department in the financial years ending 31st March, 1914, 1925 and 1926, respectively?

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Guinness): As the reply contains a number of figures, I propose, with my hon. Friend's permission, to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Sir F. MEYER: Is it not a fact that in the last two or three years the officers in this Department have been shown as temporary, and is there any intention of gradually dispensing with their services?

Mr. GUINNESS: I must lock into that. There are more officers employed than in 1914, but without notice I cannot say how many are on a temporary basis.

The particulars asked for are as follow:



Number of persons Employed.
Total Salaries.




£


1914
99
14,264


1925
160
50,103


1926
164
52,350

In addition, in 1914, 75 persons were employed on part-time duties in connection with the collection of fishery statistics it salaries ranging from £2 to £50 per annum, with total salaries of £1,745. In 1,925 and 1926, 103 and 105 part-time collectors were employed respectively, at salaries ranging from £2 to £52 per annum, with total salaries of £2,150 and £2,200 respectively.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL MINING INDUSTRY.

BRITISH COAL EXPORTS.

Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: 16.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the tonnage and value of our total exports of coal from this country in 1925 as compared with the two previous years; and what quantity of coal is now being used for
bunkering purposes at British ports as compared with the average of recent years?

The SECRETARY for MINES (Colonel Lane Fox): I will circulate the information in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

The figures are as follow:


Exports of British Coal.*


Year.
Tons.
£


1925
50,817,118
50,477,211


1924
61,651,273
72,079,547


1923
79,459,469
99,847,237


* Shipments to the Irish Free State are included from 1st April, 1923.

The quantity of coal shipped as bunkers for foreign and coastwise trade in 1925 was 17,790,192 tons as compared with an average of 19,554,706 tons for the years 1922 to 1924.

RAIL-BORNE COAL (SHORT WEIGHT).

Mr. T. HENDERSON: 34.
asked the Secretary for Mines when he will be in a position to publish a Report of his inquiry into the subject of short weight in rail-borne coal?

Colonel LANE FOX: I fear I cannot yet say when it will be possible to complete the inquiry. I have every intention of doing so as soon as opportunity may offer, but, in present circumstances, it has had to take place second to other more urgent and important matters.

SUBSIDY (EMPLOYMENT, PRODUCTION AND EXPORT).

Mr. HARMSWORTH: 36.
asked the Secretary for Mines how many additional coal miners have secured employment since the coal subsidy came into operation and whether he will give figures showing production and export of coal for each month of subsidy, for each of the equivalent number of months preceding the subsidy, and for each of the months of the year 1924–25 corresponding to the months of subsidy?

Colonel LANE FOX: I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate the information in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

The particulars are as follow:

At the end of January, 1926, there were 58,600 more wage-earners employed in the coal-mining industry than at the beginning of August, 1925.

The production and export figures are as follow:


Month.
Output of Saleable Coal.
Quantity of Coal Exported.


1924.
Tons.
Tons.


August
20,106,300
5,074,744


September
21,960,400
5,098,406


October
22,954,600
4,932,852


November
21,098,000
4,758,800


December
22,000,400
5,167,525


1925.




January
22,534,200
4,366,051


February
21,100,100
4,344,008


March
22,522,900
4,392,258


April
20,095,400
4,359,817


May
20,408,300
4,652,464


June
17,581,300
3,733,845


July
21,221,700
4,442,256


August
16,461,100
3,272,110


September
18,709,300
3,902,006


October
20,894,900
4,382,484


November
20,363,200
4,337,768


December
22,526,000
4,632,051


1926.




January
21,591,800
4,148,042

NYSTAGMUS.

Mr. PALING: 37.
asked the Secretary for Mines the number of coal miners certified as having nystagmus in each of the years from 1921 to 1925, inclusive?

Colonel LANE FOX: The number of certificates of disablement given by certifying surgeons was: In 1921, 1,986; in 1922, 4,047; in 1923, 4,050; in 1924, 3,446. The figures for 1925 have not yet been compiled by the Home Office.

ELECTRIC LAMPS.

Mr. PALING: 38.
asked the Secretary for Mines the number of pits in Great Britain where electric lamps are used underground; and the approximate number of men using such lamps?

Colonel LANE FOX: At the end of 1924 there were 356,817 electric safety lamps in use, practically all of them underground, at 1,012 mines. I cannot give even an estimate of the number of men who use these lamps.

ROYAL COMMISSION (REPORT).

Mr. RENNIE SMITH: 47.
asked the Prime Minister whether the forthcoming Report of the Coal Commission will be an interim Report or whether it will report on the whole field of the inquiry?

The PRIME MINISTER: I understand that it is the intention of the Commission to present a full report at the earliest possible date.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND.

MATERNITY INSTITUTIONS.

Mr. N. MACLEAN: 31.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he can state the amount of grant paid to English maternity institutions; whether any similar grant is paid to similar institutions in Scotland; and, if not, whether, in view of the new Regulations which come into force in Scotland on 1st May, 1926, increasing the cost and extending the period of maternity nurses, he will make representations to the Treasury for a proportionate grant to be made to Scottish maternity institutions?

The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Sir John Gilmour): With regard to the first part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the Minister of Health. As regards the second part, under the maternity service and child welfare schemes in Scotland, no payments of grant are made directly to maternity institutions, but where a local authority has made approved arrangements with a voluntary institution or itself provides an institution, the approved cost rates against the maternity and child welfare grant. In reply to the last part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to my answer of yesterday to the question put by the hon. and gallant Member for Leith. As the hon. Member is doubtless aware, the whole question of the finances of voluntary hospitals in Scotland has been the subject of a remit to a special Committee whose Report I have just received.

Mr. MACLEAN: Why, when I put a question to the Secretary of State for Scotland asking for a statement that will enable a comparison to be made, am I referred for a reply to part of my question to the Minister of Health for England? Could not the information have been obtained by the Secretary of State for Scotland, and a straight answer given so that we could compare the grants given in Scotland with those for similar institutions in England?

Sir J. GILMOUR: The obvious answer is that my Department has not this
information at its disposal. It is much better that hon. Members, if they desire this information, should question the Department themselves.

Mr. MACLEAN: The latter part of the question is bound up with the former. Surely courtesy to Scottish Members would have given the Secretary of State for Scotland the right to approach the Ministry of Health for England and ask for these figures.

Mr. MAXTON: Is it not the fact that the regulation of 1st May increasing the cost and extending the period of training for maternity has added considerably to the expense of institutions which undertake that work, and that no money is coming from national or local sources to meet that additional burden which has been imposed on them?

Sir J. GILMOUR: Quite obviously, cannot answer a question about a specific order unless after notice.

Mr. MACLEAN: That is the question that is here.

Mr. SPEAKER: The question has been misunderstood.

Mr. MAXTON: By the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. SPEAKER: Perhaps it can be repeated in a form which will bring out the facts.

FISHING INDUSTRY, MORAY FIRTH.

Mr. WALLHEAD: 32.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware of the discontent amongst the fishing communities along the Moray Firth in consequence of their trade with Russia being at a standstill; and whether he proposes to take any action in the matter with a view to reviving trade, and thereby removing the more immediate cause of poverty prevailing in the area from Wick to Lossiemouth and from Buckie to Peterhead?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I have been asked to reply. I am aware that there is some discontent among the fishing communities in the area mentioned, on account of their trade with Russia not being resumed on the full pre-War scale. As regards the second part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave to the hon. Member for Mile End on 9th February, a copy of which I am sending him.

Mr. WALLHEAD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these fishing communities declare that in 1924 their prosperity was greater than it had been before or since for some considerable time, and can he explain why?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I can only explain it by the fact that other countries, happily, were able to purchase where Russia is not.

Mr. DENNIS HERBERT: Is there, in fact, any obstacle as far as the Government are concerned to these fishing communities making contracts with Russia if they are able and see fit to do so?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: No, Sir; there is no obstacle to prevent it.

Mr. STEPHEN: Can the right hon. Gentleman inform us whaler the Government are taking any steps to meet the demands of the fishing community?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: It rests with Russia to create those conditions which will give the fishing community confidence to make contracts.

Mr. WALLHEAD: Is it a fact that Russia has expressed her willingness to create those conditions if the British Government are willing to respond?

ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS (SIZE OF CLASSES).

Mr. WESTWOOD: 33.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many education authorities in Scotland have reduced all their classes to the maximum of 60 pupils for primary departments as demanded by the Scottish Education Department in 1924: and, if all have not done so, what action does he propose to enforce that no class shall exceed more than 60 in the primary department and more than 40 in the post-qualifying departments?

Sir J. GILMOUR: The reports received by the Department indicate that there has been a steady improvement since the date of the last return, which was obtained in April, 1924: A fresh return is now being called for. When that has been completed, I will consider what action, if any, it may be desirable to take.

Mr. WESTWOOD: Is it necessary for the Secretary of State for Scotland to
consider what action he will take as against giving instructions to carry out the instructions already given?

Sir J. GILMOUR: My information is that the instructions have been largely carried out.

Captain GEE: On a point of Order. May Members under the Gallery have light?

Mr. STEPHEN: Can the Secretary of State for Scotland not give us the number asked for in the question?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I have just asked for a fresh return.

Mr. STEPHEN: Can the right hon. Gentleman expedite his inquiry? I asked him a similar question a fortnight ago, and I was expecting to get information?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I hope to send the hon. Member certain figures in our possession.

Oral Answers to Questions — ELECTRICAL DEVELOPMENT.

Mr. HARMSWORTH: 19.
asked the President of the Board of Trade when it is proposed to publish the Report of Lord Weir's Committee on Electrical Development?

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Colonel Ashley): I have been asked to reply. I am not in a position to add anything to the answer given to the hon. Member for South-West Kingston-upon-Hull on the 8th February. I am sending my hon. Friend a copy of this.

Mr. HARRIS: Does not the right hon. Gentleman remember that he stated in the Debate last year that the Report was ready last June?

Colonel ASHLEY: That has nothing to do with the decision whether to publish or not.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

RAILWAY RATES TRIBUNAL.

Mr. AMMON: 39.
asked the Minister of Transport on what grounds the assistant secretary to the Ministry was forbidden to reply to certain questions addressed to him at the sitting of the Railway Rates Tribunal on 10th January last?

Colonel ASHLEY: On the ground stated in the affidavit furnished to the Tribunal, which is published in their proceedings.

Mr. AMMON: Is it the intention to conceal the fact that the amount of economies actually effected was very much less than were announced by Sir Eric Geddes when he brought in the proposals to combine the railway companies?

Colonel ASHLEY: The hon. Member is quite mistaken.

Mr. AMMON: Is it not right that Parliament should have the information underlying these railway amalgamations, in order that we may know the facts?

Colonel ASHLEY: I do not think it is possible to give the information, because it was confidential information furnished to the Minister.

ROAD FUND.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 40.
asked the Minister of Transport how much money is at present in the Road Fund; what has been the expenditure to date during the present financial year; and what surplus, if any, he expects to have in hand at the end of the financial year?

Colonel ASHLEY: The cash and investment balances of the Road Fund at 31st December, 1925, were £11,932,713. This figure had temporarily increased to about £19¼ millions at the 31st January as a result of the high collections of duty which are made in the early part of the year. The total payments out of the Road Fund during the 10 months ending 31st January last amounted to about £14,163,000, and the cash balance at the end of the current, financial year is estimated at £17,000,000. It will, of course, be understood that there are always large commitments outstanding against the Fund in respect of grants promised but not yet paid.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Over how many years does the £17,000,000 spread?

Colonel ASHLEY: I must have notice of that Question.

Mr. C. EDWARDS: 54.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has
received letters from the Farmers' Union in Monmouthshire and also from the county council protesting against the threatened use of the Road Fund for any purpose other than that for which it was intended, namely, the construction and maintenance of new roads; and will he state the policy of the Government on this matter?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I constantly receive many letters on this and other topics connected with the finance of the year, but I can only refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave on 9th February, to similar questions on this subject.

Brigadier - General CLIFTON BROWN: 41.
asked the Minister of Transport how much has been offered as a grant from the Road Fund to the Middlesex County Council and other local authorities for planting trees along new arterial roads; how much does it cost to plant a mile of these roads with tree; and with the smaller flowering species it is proposed to put in the intervals; and whether it is proposed to give an annual maintenance grant for these trees out of the Road Fund?

Colonel ASHLEY: I have offered a 50 per cent. grant towards an expenditure of £4,202 which the Middlesex County Council propose to incur in planting trees along 24 miles of arterial roads. The estimated cost thus works out at £175 per mile. This does not include smaller species which may later be planted in the intervals and for which no estimate has been submitted. No other grants of this kind have yet been made. The maintenance of the trees will rank for grant at the appropriate classification percentages.

Brigadier-General BROWN: Does the right hon. Gentleman not think it more important at the present time to give any spare money like that towards the lessening of the burden of the rural ratepayer rather than towards beautifying these very ugly roads?

Colonel ASHLEY: No, I think the hon. and gallant Member must have a sense of proportion. If you have good roads, their is no reason why you should not have pretty roads, and roads on which it is pleasant to drive.

Sir HENRY CAUTLEY: Why is it that, while the Minister is spending the Road
Fund money on planting trees, many rural authorities and local authorities are requiring the owners of land to cut down trees?

Colonel ASHLEY: When they are required to do that, it is a question for the local authority, who know the circumstances.

Mr. MACLEAN: Are we to take it that, since the Minister of Transport is giving grants for the planting of trees, in future all questions upon afforestation will be answered by the Minister of Transport?

Colonel ASHLEY: - That is another matter.

LONDON AND NORTH EASTERN RAILWAY (TRUCKS).

Brigadier-General BROOKE: 42.
asked the Minister of Transport if his attention has been called to the complaints which have been made of the serious delay in handling goods owing to the shortage of trucks on the London and North Eastern Railway; and whether he will be willing to make further inquiries as to the extent of the hindrance to trade complained of?

Colonel ASHLEY: I am aware that certain complaints of this kind have been made against the railways, especially after the periods of fog and snow that occurred during the winter. If my hon. and gallant Friend will furnish me with the particulars on which his complaint is based, I will cause inquiries to be made.

SOUTHERN RAILWAY (ROLLING STOCK).

Mr. ALBERY: 43.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware of the condition of the rolling stock at present employed on parts of the Southern Railway, especially between London, Dartford and Gravesend; if he will take steps to ensure that this railway company will, in future, provide the travelling public in these districts with similar accommodation to that provided on some parts of the Southern Railway and by other railway companies in this country; and is he aware that the public in these districts resent being charged full fares for such inadequate travelling facilities?

Colonel ASHLEY: I do not think that I have recently received any representations
on this point. I may, however, remind my hon. Friend that the suburban lines of the Southern Railway in North Kent are in process of being electrified, and the normal type of electrical rolling stock will then be substituted.

Mr. ALBERY: In view of the dirty and dilapidated condition of this rolling stock, may I ask if the right hon. Gentleman will send an official of his Department to inspect it, and to report to him?

Colonel ASHLEY: I will consider that suggestion.

Mr. WALLHEAD: Private enterprise!

ROAD MAINTENANCE (SOLID TYRED VEHICLES).

Mr. W. BAKER: 44 and 61.
asked (1) the Minister of Transport whether, having regard to the high cost of road maintenance and to the destruction caused by vehicles shod with steel and with other forms of solid tyres, and by obsolete and badly-sprung vehicles, he will state what steps he is taking to save the money which is being wasted by the disintegration of our roads;
(2) the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the destruction to roads which is caused by trains of caravans drawn by traction engines, and by other vehicles shod with solid tyres, he will consider the desirability of imposing increased taxation on all such vehicles?

Colonel ASHLEY: I will, with the hon. Member's permission, reply to these questions together. A revision of the rates of licence duties payable for mechanically propelled vehicles is now under consideration, and I cannot anticipate any decision that may be arrived at with regard to the particular types of vehicles referred to by the hon. Member. Additional powers for regulating the construction and use of vehicles will be sought in the Bill, which I hope to present to the House during the course of the Session. As regards the steel-tyred vehicles to which the questions refers, I have made representations, pending legislation on the subject, to the Showmen's Guild, and to the National Traction Engine Owners' and Users' Association, with a view to ensuring the substitution, wherever practicable, of rubber-tyred wheels for steel tyres.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Seeing that the second question applies to caravans, which are the property in most cases of comparatively poor people, will the right hon. Gentleman consider the matter before taking any steps that will throw extra burdens on these people?

Colonel ASHLEY: I do not think that I can discriminate in that sense. The first thing I have to consider is the damage done to the roads.

CYCLISTS (WHITE DISCS).

Sir H. BRITTAIN: 68.
asked the Minister of Transport whether, for the purpose of additional safety during night travel, his attention has been called to an experiment recently made by cyclists of carrying a small white disc on the rear wheel of their machines; and whether he will have this device inquired into?

Colonel ASHLEY: A suggestion has been made that the rear mudguards of bicycles should be painted white for the purpose of additional safety at night. Experiments are new being carried out to test this and other proposals put forward for a similar purpose.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman agree to carry out an experiment with this inexpensive device if I ride the bicycle?

Colonel ASHLEY: No, Sir. Experiments are being made by officials of my Department.

Sir FRANK MEYER: Is it not the case that if such a device were adopted it would enable motorists to dim their headlights and thereby assist oncoming traffic.

OMNIBUSES (PNEUMATIC TYRES).

Mr. W. BAKER: 84.
asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that the Departmental Committee on the Taxation and Regulation of Road Vehicles, in their Second Report, strongly supported pneumatics up to an unladen weight of 3¾ tons; whether he is aware that pneumatic tyres are fitted on the omnibuses running in Edinburgh and in many other centres; and whether he will consider the desirability of permitting the London General Omnibus Company to fit pneumatic tyres to their double-deck fleet?

Sir H. BARNSTON (Comptroller of the Household): The Home Secretary is advised that few, if any, of the
double-deck omnibuses licensed in the Metropolitan Police District come within the scope of the Committee's recommendation, and he is not aware that any such omnibuses fitted with pneumatic tyres are at present in use anywhere in Great Britain. A number of single-deck omnibuses fitted with pneumatic tyres have been licensed by the Commissioner of Police as an experiment; but until the present trials, which must necessarily take some time, are completed, there can be no question of extending the trials to omnibuses of the double-deck type.

Oral Answers to Questions — IMPERIAL ECONOMIC COMMITTEE.

Mr. RAMSDEN: 45.
asked the Prime Minister when he proposes to give effect to the recommendation of the Imperial Economic Committee?

The PRIME MINISTER: The Government have been giving close consideration to this matter, and I hope at an early date to make a statement as to the action which His Majesty's Government propose to take.

Mr. HURD: 48.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the decision of the Government to bring British home-produce within the purview of the Imperial Economic Committee in considering the means of applying the new £1,000,000 Empire produce grant, the Government will add to the Committee a qualified representative of the British agricultural interest?

The PRIME MINISTER: I cannot add anything at present to the statement on this subject made in paragraph 14 of the White Paper on Agricultural Policy recently issued. The action to be taken in relation to that statement is under consideration.

Mr. HURD: Is it not a fact that the paragraph does not refer at all to this specific point?

THE PRIME MINISTER: I will look and see.

Oral Answers to Questions — RATES AND TAXATION (STATISTICS).

Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSON: 49.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the total amount raised in taxes in
1913–14 and the total amount raised today; and how the increase in taxation compares with the increase in local rates levied during the same periods?

Mr. THOMSON also: 89.
asked the Minister of Health the total amount raised by local authorities in rates in 1913–14, and the total amount so raised to-day; and how the increase compares with the increase in national taxation during the same period?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Churchill): I will answer these questions together. With the hon. Member's permission, I will circulate the precise figures in the OFFICIAL REPORT, but, broadly speaking, the proportionate increase in taxation has been three-and-a-half times as large as the increase in local rates.

Following are the figures:


GREAT BRITAIN.


—
Imperial Taxation Revenue.
Local Rates.



£
£


1913–14
153,408,000
78,985,000


1924–25
679,982,000
159,887,000*


1925–26
678,735,000*
Not yet available.


Per cent. Increase:




1924–25 over 1913–14.
343.2
102.4


1925–26 over 1913–14.
342.4
—


*Estimated.

Oral Answers to Questions — INTER-ALLIED DEBTS.

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: 50.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the estimated sum which will be required to meet our debt payment to the United States of America during the forthcoming year; and how much of the same will be covered by payments from foreign countries on whose behalf the debt was incurred, and the amounts payable, respectively?

Mr. CHURCHILL: Taking sterling at par, our debt payments to the United States Government during 1926 will amount to £33,062,000 for interest and capital. Against this, we should receive about £14 millions from German reparations
and Inter-Allied War debts already funded Negotiations are proceeding with a view to the settlement of the remaining Inter-Allied War debts.

Oral Answers to Questions — ENEMY ACTION CLAIMS.

Mr. T. THOMSON: 51.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the undistributed balance of the sum of £5,300,000 voted by the House for payments to those who suffered loss and damage through enemy action, which is surrendered to the Treasury at the end of this financial year, will be re-allocated by the Government for distribution to these sufferers next year?

Mr. CHURCHILL: There is no "fund" of £5,300,000 and no "undistributed balance," if by that is meant money actually in hand. Votes to pay the "Sumner" and "belated" awards have been taken yearly as required since 1921–22 and the amount unspent each year has lapsed in the normal way. The amount provided in the current year's estimates for the payment of the balance of awards recommended by the Sumner Commission and under the scheme for belated claims is £80,000. It is expected that payment of the awards will be almost entirely completed by 31st March, and the question of a re-Vote will only arise if this proves not to be the case.

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: Is it not a fact that the Government have received an unexpected amount from Germany as compensation for loss of profits? In view of this new fund, will the right hon. Gentleman answer the question if it is put down again in a different way?

Mr. CHURCHILL: No, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL DEBT.

Mr. WESTWOOD: 52.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the total amount of the National Debt as at the 31st December, 1925; the amount due per head of the population; and the interest charges on the National Debt per head of the population for the year 1925?

Mr. CHURCHILL: The total nominal amount of the National Debt on the 31st
December, 1925, was £7,738 millions, and the estimate of the charge for interest and management in the financial year ending 31st March next is £305 millions. Divided by the number of the population, these figures become £171 and £6 15s. respectively.

Oral Answers to Questions — CURRENCY NOTES.

Sir WILLIAM LANE MITCHELL: 53.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the amount of Treasury notes in circulation on the 1st of January in each year since they were first issued?

Mr. CHURCHILL: With my hon. Friend's permission, I will circulate the figures in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following are the figures:

The following amounts of currency notes and currency note certificates were outstanding on the first Wednesday in January in each year since 1915 inclusive; namely:

£
s.


6th January, 1915
37,971,113
0


5th January 1916
103,040,351
10


3rd January 1917
148,770,440
0


2nd January 1918
212,450,950
10


1st January 1919
323,240,501
0


7th January 1920
347,995,732
0


5th January 1921
357,938,395
0


4th January 1922
318,133,821
10


3rd January 1923
293,894,189
0


2nd January 1924
291,263,999
0


7th January 1925
291,667,060
0


6th January 1926
292,616,691
10

Sir FREDRIC WISE: 63.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he proposes fixing a definite limit to the amount of the fiduciary issue?

Mr. CHURCHILL: The fiduciary issue of currency notes is already limited to the highest figure reached in any week in the previous year. For 1926 the limit is £247,902,549. If my hon. Friend has in mind the question of the regulation of the fiduciary issue after the transfer of the currency note issue to the Bank of England, I have already explained that the question will not, arise for decision for a considerable time to come, and that when it does arise it will require legislation.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE FACILITIES ACTS.

Mr. BRIGGS: 55.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, in view of the greater facilities that exist to-day for obtaining credit, he will consider the limiting of guarantees under the Trade Facilities Acts to capital, and discontinue entirely the giving of these guarantees to interest?

Mr. CHURCHILL: My hon. Friend was good enough to communicate this suggestion to me privately, and I have had it carefully examined. I am advised that it is impracticable. A security guaranteed as to principal only would be of very unusual form, and it would not be available for investment by trustees. These facts, together with the absence of a guarantee of interest, would make it impossible to issue such a security at a reasonable price, and would therefore defeat the object of the Trade Facilities Acts.

Mr. BRIGGS: 53.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what losses have been incurred under the Trade Facilities Acts of the capital sums guaranteed; what is the total sum for which the State is responsible of the capitalised value of the interest upon such capital losses; and if a company having a guarantee defaults on its interest, what action do the Treasury take?

Mr. CHURCHILL: Payments by the Treasury in respect of default on capital payments amount to £5,384 14s. 6d. These payments of course extinguished any subsequent claim by the lender on the Treasury guarantee in respect of interest on the capital extinguished. Of the amount stated, £4,134 14s. 6d. may be regarded as a final loss, whereas the rest may ultimately be recovered. If a company defaults on the payment of interest or repayment of capital in respect of a loan guaranteed by the Treasury, the Treasury takes whatever action seems called for to enforce their security and protect the Exchequer. Normally this action would be by way of appointing a receiver.

Mr. MAXTON: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us what percentage that is of the total guarantee given? I mean the amount lost.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I have not a calculating machine with me, and I
would not trust myself to make a percentage calculation on the spur of the moment.

Mr. WALLHEAD: I take it that the percentage is very small?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I hesitate to commit myself to a bird's-eye view of the figures, but on a bird's-eye view it does not appear very large.

Mr. BRIGGS: 57.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the total capital sum guaranteed up to date under the Trade Facilities Acts; what is the capitalised liability for interest on such capital sum; have any of the guarantees expired and, if so, to what amount; and dc the Treasury obtain any lien upon a company's assets in return for giving a guarantee?

Mr. CHURCHILL: As the answer is a long one, I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

The guarantees which the Treasury have stated their willingness to give up to the 31st December last amounted to £63,169,741. In view of the varying terms of the loans guaranteed, it would be an extremely laborious task to work out the present capitalised liability for the interest; and in any case the amount would only represent the difference between the above nominal figure of £63 millions and its present value.

Four guaranteed loans amounting to £529,700 have been entirely paid off. The Treasury liability has been further reduced by about £900,000 as a result of the repayment of loans by instalment. In the normal course, the Treasury guarantee is only given on condition that the loan to be guaranteed is to be secured by a charge on the company's assets, and in some cases further guarantees are obtained from other businesses interested in the company's undertaking. In a few exceptional cases in which a lien has not been taken, the Treasury have been satisfied on the advice of the Advisory Committee that the security is satisfactory.

Oral Answers to Questions — GERMANY (BUDGET).

Captain FAIRFAX: 58.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he
has any information that the German Finance Minister is proposing considerable tax reductions and tax simplification in collection and returns; and, if so, whether he will consider any respects in which that example might be helpfully followed in the preparation of his Budget?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I have not yet received any information as to the proposals recently made by the German Finance Minister beyond what has appeared in the public Press. The general position, however, is well known. As the result of the collapse of the mark in 1923 the German Government was forced to adopt an emergency tax system of a makeshift character, based largely on taxes on turnover and great uncertainty in estimating prevailed. In consequence of a policy of currency stabilisation and the alteration in values an abnormal Budget surplus has accrued. The revision of the emergency taxation system has for some time been under consideration. I understand that the principal measures which the German Finance Minister has proposed are to reduce the various taxes on turnover and on industrial amalgamations and to alter the dates of payment of certain other direct taxes. It will be seen that conditions in Germany are very different from those in this country, where we have neither a multiplicity of temporary direct taxes, nor, so far as I am aware, an abnormal Budget surplus.

Oral Answers to Questions — INCOME TAX.

Sir W. DAVISON: 59.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that many taxpayers who have claims against the Inland Revenue under the decision of the Court of Appeal in Granger v. Maxwell are unable to get any satisfaction from the authorities on the ground that the Commissioners of Inland Revenue are considering a further appeal to the House of Lords against the decision of the Court of Appeal; whether it is the intention of the Commissioners to appeal to the House of Lords or not; and if he will give an assurance that the Commissioners' decision in this matter will be expedited as much as possible so that the taxpayers concerned may be enabled to obtain the money which is due to them without further delay?

Mr. CHURCHILL: The Commissioners of Inland Revenue have decided not to appeal to the House of Lords, and are taking steps to expedite the repayment of any tax which may prove to be due to taxpayers in accordance with the judgment in this case.

Sir W. DAVISON: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for his reply, may I ask will he take steps with a view to expediting decisions on the part of the Crown's advisers in these matters, in view of the great hardship which is caused by the delay and by not knowing whether or not the Income Tax authorities intend to appeal to the House of Lords?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I do not think we can alter the normal procedure, which has been adopted. I do not think there has been any undue delay, but necessary consideration must be given.

Mr. JOHNSTON: Arising out of the original answer, is it the case that interest earned in one year is assessed on the following year, and if in the intervening 12 months the asset itself disappears, no tax is levied upon interest which has actually been paid?

Mr. CHURCHILL: That appears to follow, so far, on the lines of the judgment recently given in the House of Lords, but I should like notice before I give my opinion on that point.

Mr. JOHNSTON: Can the right hon. Gentleman give any estimate of the number of millions of pounds which thus escape assessment in the year?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I could not possibly do so without very careful inquiry. I doubt if it would be possible to give an accurate figure or even an approximate figure.

Oral Answers to Questions — LANDOWNERS (GREAT BRITAIN).

Commander WILLIAMS: 60.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has yet been able to obtain any estimate of the number of owners of land in Great Britain; if the figures appearing in the Parliamentary Accounts and Papers, 1876, Vol. LXXX are still correct; and, if not, has he any intention of bringing them up to date?

Mr. GUINNESS: I have been asked to reply. So far as I am aware, there is no estimate of the number of owners of land in Great Britain later than that contained in the Report referred to in my hon. Friend's question. The answer to the last part of the question is in the negative.

Commander WILLIAMS: Is the right hon. Gentleman not in a position to obtain information on this subject from the results of the land valuation in 1910?

Mr. GUINNESS: No, I do not think there is at our disposal any further information. My hon. and gallant Friend will remember that the original inquiries took many years, and proved to be very unreliable owing to duplications.

Oral Answers to Questions — ENTERTAINMENTS DUTY.

Sir W. de FRECE: 62.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can state the yield of the Entertainments Duty from prices of admission exclusive of the duty up to 1s. 3d. inclusive, over 1s. 3d. up to 2s. inclusive, over 2s. up to 3s. inclusive, over 3s. up to 5s. inclusive, and over 5s., respectively?

Mr. CHURCHILL: As the answer contains figures in tabular form, I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

No information is available as to the exact yield of the Entertainments Duty on particular prices of admission, but so far as an estimate can be framed, the information asked for is as follows:


Rates of Duty.
Exclusive prices of admission.
Estimated Approximate Yield.



Exceeding
Not Exceeding




s.
d.
s.
d.
£


1d., 1½d., 2d. and 3d.

6
1
3
3,400,000


4d.
1
3
2
0
1,000,000


6d.
2
0
3
0
400,000


9d.
3
0
5
0
400,000


1s. and over
5
0
—
600,000

Oral Answers to Questions — DAWES PAYMENT (PERCENTAGES).

Sir F. WISE: 64.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the distribution of the
first annuity of the Dawes payment conforms to the percentages as arranged at Spa?

Mr. CHURCHILL: The Dawes annuities cover not only reparation, to which the Spa percentages apply, but also the other Treaty charges, such as Cost of Occupation, Belgian War Debt, etc. The amounts allocated to reparation under the Agreement of 14th January, 1925 (Command Paper 2339), are distributed in the percentages laid down in the Spa Agreement of 16th July, 1920.

Oral Answers to Questions — RUSSIA (DEATH DUTIES).

Mr. THURTLE: 65.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is able to state the scale of death duties obtaining in Russia at present; and, if so, will he give the figures in terms of sterling on the basis of the current rate of exchange?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I have no information as to the present scale of death duties in Russia.

Mr. RADFORD: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that the yield of our own death duties could be materially increased and expedited were we to adopt some of those methods in regard to capitalists which the Russian Government at one time adopted?

Oral Answers to Questions — RICHBOROUGH HARBOUR.

Mr. BRIANT: 66.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury if the Court has now approved the settlement of the case as regards the sale of Richborough Harbour under the agreement of 24th March, 1921, and, if so, for what amount; and what are the costs of the legal proceedings?

Mr. McNEILL: The settlement referred to has been approved by the Court, and certain arrangements connected therewith have now been completed. In accordance with the promise I gave the hon. Member on 24th November, I am now preparing a statement of this very complicated matter, which I will furnish to the hon. Member in a day or two.

Oral Answers to Questions — BROADCASTING COMMITTEE.

Mr. PENNY: 71.
asked the Postmaster-General whether he can say when he expects the Report of the Committee of Inquiry into broadcasting will be available for consideration by Members of this House; and whether opportunity will be given for discussing any proposed new Regulations which may be framed for the control of broadcasting after the expiry of the licence at present held by the British Broadcasting Company, Limited?

The POSTMASTER - GENERAL (Sir William Mitchell-Thomson): The Committee is at present considering the terms of its Report. Until the Report has been received and considered by the Government, I cannot say what subsequent procedure will be adopted.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE.

SUB-OFFICE (TRINANT, MONMOUTHSHIRE).

Mr. G. BARKER: 72.
asked the Postmaster-General if he is aware that there is no sub-post office at Trinant, Crumlin, Monmouthshire; that the population is about 300; that the village is isolated in a mountainous district; and will he have a sub-post office and telephone exchange opened there as soon as conveniently possible?

Sir W. MITCHELL - THOMSON: The question of opening a sub-post office at Trinant has been under consideration, but I regret that the volume of postal business is not sufficient to justify the establishment of a sub-office at present. There is a telephone exchange at Aberbeeg, about 1¼ miles distant, to which subscribers at Trinant are connected, and the establishment of a separate exchange at Trinant would not be warranted.

PENNY POSTAGE.

Mr. ALBERY: 73.
asked the Postmaster-General whether, with a view to facilitating business in this country, he will confer with the Chancellor of the Exchequer as to the possibility of a return to the 1d. postage?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I am afraid I can add nothing to the statements already made on this subject.

LETTER DELIVERIES (LONDON).

Captain FAIRFAX: 74.
asked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that letters posted in the Metropolis are now often delivered there delayed two or three days and with blurred and illegible postmarks; and whether he will take action to remedy this?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: The reply is in the negative, but if the covers of any such letters can be sent to me, I will cause the matter to be investigated forthwith.

Captain FAIRFAX: I shall be glad to send my right hon. Friend specimens of such envelopes.

Captain GEE: Is it a fact that the Reports of this House are delivered at places 15 miles away two hours earlier than they are delivered in the Metropolis?

LONDON TELEPHONE DIRECTORY.

Captain CROOKSHANK: 75
asked the Postmaster-General (1) whether, in the interests of economy, he will consider the issue of only one telephone directory each year, with a supplement of new subscribers six months later;
(2) what is the number of telephone directories which are distributed free every year; and what is the cost to his Department;
(3) whether, in the interests of economy, he will cease from issuing telephone directories free of charge, and instead cause subscribers to pay at any rate a proportion of the cost of publishing these directories?

Sir W. MITCHELL - THOMSON: Alterations and additions to the telephone directories are numerous and publication every six months is necessary for the efficiency of the service. For the London Directory these alterations amount to over 100,000 a year. In these circumstances, the issue of a supplement would not be a satisfactory alternative to a new edition. About 2,200,000 copies were distributed free to telephone subscribers in the last year. The net cost of production and distribution was about £90,000. The issue of a directory is an essential part of the telephone service, and is covered by the annual rental. If a separate charge were made, many subscribers would continue to use out-of-date directories, and the efficiency of the service would be seriously prejudiced.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: Is it not a mistake to say that these directories are distributed free, when we pay about the highest charge in Europe for our telephone service?

EMPIRE WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: 78.
asked the Postmaster-General with which parts of the Empire his Department is now in direct wireless communication; and whether any further developments are in contemplation during the current year?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I am net quite certain what my hon. Friend means by the phrase direct wireless communication. As he is no doubt aware, there is at present no two-way communication by Government wireless between this country and the Dominions, though it is hoped to open such a service during the current year with Canada, South Africa, India and Australia by means of the beam stations, now under construction here and in those countries. The contractors hope to complete the respective stations here and in Canada and South Africa in April, and those for the Indian and Australian services in August. As regards one-way communication, there has for some years been a regular Press service from Leafield to Halifax, Nova Scotia, and the opening of the Rugby station has now made it possible to broadcast messages for reception in any part of the Empire. At present official news messages are sent out from Rugby thrice daily and good reception of these is reported from places as far distant as New Zealand. In addition private messages for ships anywhere in the world are now regularly transmitted from Rugby and reception appears to be satisfactory, though it is as yet rather early to be quite definite on this point.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: May I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his reply, and ask him whether any progress has been made in regard to wireless telephone communication between this country and Canada?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Experiments are continually going on, but it is too much as yet to say whether any substantial progress has been made.

Oral Answers to Questions — MOTOR VEHICLES (STATISTICS).

Mr. BARCLAY-HARVEY: 69.
asked the Minister of Transport the total number
of private motor cars, motor hackney carriages, and mechanically-propelled commercial vehicles, respectively, licensed in England and Wales and Scotland, respectively, on 1st January, 1920, and 1st January, 1926?

Colonel ASHLEY: As the asnwer contains a number of figures, I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

No figures are available for the specific dates mentioned in the question.

In 1921 and 1925 it is estimated from the licensing returns, that the following numbers of vehicles of the classes stated were used upon public roads in Great Britain:



1921.
1925.


Horse-power class
250,000
580,000


Motor hackney carriages
76,000
99,000


Commercial goods vehicles
135,000
232,000

Particulars of the distribution of the vehicles between England and Wales and Scotland could not be obtained without a considerable expenditure of time and labour, and I hope my hon. Friend will not press for them.

Oral Answers to Questions — NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

CENTRAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE.

Mr. ROBINSON: 79.
asked the Minister of Pensions what are the names and pension qualifications of the members of the central advisory committee; whether any nominations were invited from the regional advisory councils; and when it is proposed to hold the first meeting of the new committee?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of PENSIONS (Lieut.-Colonel Stanley): The membership of the Committe is not yet complete, but I hope that it will be so very shortly, when I shall be happy to give the full information desired. With regard to the second part of the question, the answer is in the negative. A meeting of the Committee will be summoned as early as possible.

TREATMENT ALLOWANCE.

Mr. ROBINSON: 80.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether he is aware that a number of widows, mothers of disabled soldiers, who drew an allotment when the son was serving have been refused dependant's allowance while the son was undergoing treatment; and whether any instructions have been issued by the finance branch or the higher officials of the Ministry prohibiting the payment of treatment allowances to the widowed mothers dependent upon single sons when the sons are in receipt of treatment allowances in respect of treatment in an institution or as out-patients?

Lieut.-Colonel STANLEY: The allowance referred to is payable to a mother in cases of in-patient treatment only, and it is a condition of the allowance that the mother was supported by the son prior to enlistment and that such support has been continued up to the period of his in-patient treatment. No instructions to the contrary have been issued.

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPIRE SETTLEMENT.

Major BIRCHALL: 85.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether it is now possible to send further family groups of settlers from this country to West Australia?

Mr. PENNY: 86.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether, in view of the urgent desire of many families in this country to settle in Australia, he will make representations to the Government of Western Australia, with a view to the speedy reopening of the group settlement scheme?

Mr. AMERY: Three groups of 20 families each are now being recruited for Western Australia. The Western Australian Government has signified its acceptance of the Migration Agreement completed last year between the Imperial and Commonwealth Governments, and it is hoped that a steady flow of migration under the group system will shortly be resumed.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: What steps does the Department take to investigate the conditions of these settlers, and to inquire into the very serious complaints that are very often made?

Mr. AMERY: Representatives of the Department have in the last few weeks been visiting the various groups, and have reported very favourably on them.

Major CRAWFURD: Is there any hope of any similar scheme with regard to single men?

Mr. AMERY: I will certainly consider that.

Oral Answers to Questions — CULTIVABLE LAND.

Mr. ROBINSON: 82.
asked the Minister of Agriculture the area of cultivable land in England, Scotland and Wales respectively which is not under cultivation; and whether it is intended to introduce any legislation with the object of increasing the area of land under cultivation and the supply of home-grown fond?

Mr. GUINNESS: I regret that I have no information which would enable me to answer the first part of the question. With regard to the second part, the Government's proposals with regard to agriculture are set out in the White Paper on Agricultural Policy which was issued on the 2nd instant.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is that the last proposal which we can expect from the Government?

Mr. GUINNESS: It has only been out for about 10 days, and the hon. and gallant Member can hardly expect any further programme at the moment.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Is there any probability of the Department undertaking a survey, with a view to securing the information required?

Oral Answers to Questions — CLERKS OF THE PEACE.

Mr. C. EDWARDS: 83.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether any communication has reached him from the County Councils' Association with reference to amending the Local Government Act, 1888, so that the Clerk of the Peace shall not be ipso facto clerk of the county council, and that the county council shall have the right to appoint their own clerk and have power to terminate his appointment on such terms as may be agreed upon and what is his intention in the matter?

Major Sir HARRY BARNSTON: The Home Secretary asks me to say that no such communication has reached him.

Oral Answers to Questions — CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS ACT.

Mr. AMMON: 87.
asked the Minister of Health the number of pension awards under the Widow', Orphans' and Old Age Contributory Pensions Act; and the number of first payments made on the 5th January?

Sir K. WOOD: On the latest figures available the number of pension awards in England, Wales and Scotland is 120,776; the number of first payments actually made on 5th January was 83,715, but in the remainder of the cases in which awards have been made, payment has, of course, dated back to 5th January.

Oral Answers to Questions — POOR LAW RELIEF.

Mr. AMMON: 88.
asked the Minister of Health whether instructions have been issued by his Department to boards of guardians that a reduced scale of Poor Law relief is to be given to applicants whose names have been removed from the live register of the Employment Exchange, or who have received Form U. I.503A?

Sir K. WOOD: No, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — VACCINATION (PROSECUTION, HEMEL HEMPSTEAD).

Mr. GROVES: 90.
asked the Minister of Health whether he will make inquiries into the prosecution of Mr. Ernest W. Fisher, of King's Langley, for refusing to have his child vaccinated, and the imposition of 26s. as costs; and whether he will ascertain why the Hemel Hempstead vaccination officer did not take the case to Court without having the public vaccinator present as a witness and thus increasing the costs, seeing that the defendant did not dispute the facts of the case.

Sir K. WOOD: My right hon. Friend is in communication with the Guardians in reference to this case, and will inform the hon. Member of the result.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. RAMSAY MacDONALD: May I ask the Prime Minister how far he proposes to go to-night if the Eleven o'Clock Rule is suspended?

The PRIME MINISTER: It is not my desire to ask the House to sit late to-night, but I hope we shall be able to make progress with the Supplementary Estimates, and that we shall be able to take them in the order in which, I think, I announced them last Friday—the Ministry of Agriculture, the Board of Trade, and the allied Votes, such as Overseas Trade, the Exhibition, and possibly the Police Vote, with one or two of the Report stages. I hope we shall not have to sit up late to-night.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is it intended to start on the Report stages of any of these Votes after the Private Member's Motion has been disposed of at eleven o'clock?

The PRIME MINISTER: My hon. and gallant Friend will remember that it is a most usual practice to take Reports of Supplementary Estimates late in the evening when you can get them.

Mr. STEPHEN: How many of the Votes which the right hon. Gentleman mentioned does he expect to get to-night?

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Could the right hon. Gentleman not give us an indication in answer to what I asked? Does he propose to take the Report stages of any Votes after Eleven, after the Private Member's Motion is disposed of, and, if so, which?

The PRIME MINISTER: The hon. and gallant Member will remember that Report stages are taken as opportunity arises during the progress of the Estimates, when there are a number of Supplementary Estimates, as there are this year.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Is it the intention of the right hon. Gentleman to take the Report stage to-night of the Vote for the £200,000 in connection with Scottish housing?

The PRIME MINISTER: It depends entirely on the time. I cannot give any undertaking as to what Reports will be taken. It is not in my power to say what Votes the House shall take, but,
if it be possible to get that Estimate on the Report stage, I shall be very glad to get it. If not, we will take it another time.

Major CRAWFURD: If the remaining Votes are obtained before Private Member's business comes on and the Report stages come on after Eleven o'clock, could the right hon. Gentleman not indicate the order in which the Votes will be taken on Report?

The PRIME MINISTER: I am not sure I caught what the hon. and gallant Member said, but I have no desire to take any Report stages at a very late hour that are likely to be of a contentious nature. The Leader of the House or the Chief Whip must be guided by the circumstances at the time, but it is not my desire to force through contentious Votes, and it is not my intention to ask the House to sit to a very protracted hour.

Mr. MAXTON: Does the right hon. Gentleman really expect to get anything more than the first Vote to-day, which involves a sum of £250,000 for the sugar beet subsidy? He gave us practically a whole day for the discussion of the Weir steel houses, which only involved £200,000, but in this case a sum of £250,000 is involved, and the same person, Lord Weir, is largely interested. Personally, I do not see how the right hon. Gentleman can reasonably ask the House to let him have this sum before 8.15 to-night.

Later

Mr. MAXTON: May I point out that the Prime Minister has not yet given us any idea which would enable a Member to

make any arrangements? I think he is treating us with discourtesy in not giving us any specific notice as to the hour at which he proposes the House will sit, and no idea as to how many Votes will be taken. He is leaving us all here with our whole day and night absolutely indefinite, and I, for one, will do my best to prevent the Government getting any Vote at all.

The PRIME MINISTER: During the brief period the hon. Member has occupied his seat, I have made a rapid calculation, and I find that the great progress to which he alludes would take us 4,000 days to get the Estimates. I am afraid we cannot proceed at that speed.

Mr. MACLEAN: I would ask the Prime Minister to give us some estimate as to what particular hour, or, approximately, what hour the House will adjourn. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] Evidently there is quite a lot of Prime Ministers here.

The PRIME MINISTER: I have already answered the Leader of the Opposition, and told him it was not my desire that the House should sit late to-night. Of course, I am the victim of circumstances, as any Leader must be, and sometimes it is necessary to sit late if more Members than usual desire to speak. But I hope very much the House may rise to-night very shortly after midnight.

Motion made, and Question put,
That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[The Prime Minister.]

The House divided: Ayes, 259; Noes, 128.

Division No. 21.]
AYES.
[3.57 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Blades, Sir George Rowland
Cautley, Sir Henry S.


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Blundell, F. N.
Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)


Albery, Irving James
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth. S.)


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Cazalet, Captain Victor A.


Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)
Boyd, Carpentor, Major A.
Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Brass, Captain W.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Briggs, J. Harold
Chapman, Sir S.


Apsley, Lord
Briscoe, Richard George
Charteris, Brigadier-General J.


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Brittain, Sir Harry
Christie, J. A.


Ashmead-Bartlett, E.
Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Churchman, Sir Arthur C.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Conway, Sir W. Martin


Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish
Bullock, Captain M.
Cope, Major William


Berry, Sir George
Burman, J. B.
Couper, J. B.


Bethell, A.
Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N.)


Betterton, Henry B.
Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Craig, Ernest (Chester, Crewe)


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Campbell, E. T.
Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry


Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Radford, E. A.


Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Howard, Captain Hon. Donald
Ramsden, E.


Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Rawson, Sir Alfred Cooper


Cunliffe, Sir Herbert
Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis
Reid, Captain A. S. C. (Warrington)


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Huntingfield, Lord
Remnant, Sir James


Dalziel, Sir Davison
Hurd, Percy A.
Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Hurst, Gerald B.
Ropner, Major L.


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Iliffe, Sir Edward M.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Salmon, Major I.


Dawson, Sir Philip
Jackson, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. F. S.
Sandeman, A. Stewart


Dean, Arthur Wellesley
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Dixey, A. C.
Jephcott, A. R.
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston).
Savery, S. S.


Eden, Captain Anthony
Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)
Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W. R., Sowerby)


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Kindersley, Major Guy M.
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. McI. (Renfrew, W.)


Elveden, Viscount
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)


England, Colonel A.
Knox, Sir Alfred
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)


Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s-M.)
Lamb, J. Q.
Skelton, A. N.


Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon


Everard, W. Lindsay
Lister, Cunliffe, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Falle Sir Bertram G.
Locker-Lampoon, Com. O. (Handsw'th)
Smithers, Waldron


Fanshawe, Commander G. D.
Loder, J. de V.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Fermoy, Lord
Looker, Herbert William
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Fielden, E. B.
Lord, Walter Greaves
Sprot, Sir Alexander


Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Lougher, L.
Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.)


Forrest, W.
Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Fraser, Captain Ian
Lumley, L. R.
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Frece, Sir Walter de
MacAndrew, Charles Glen
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Ganzoni, Sir John
McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus
Streatfeild, Captain S. R.


Gates, Percy
MacIntyre, Ian
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton
McLean, Major A.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Gee, Captain R.
Macmillan, Captain H.
Tasker, Major R. Inigo


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm
Templeton, W. P.


Goff, Sir Park
McNeill Rt. Hon. Ronald John
Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)


Gower, Sir Robert
Macquisten, F. A.
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Grant, J. A.
MacRobert, Alexander M.
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell.


Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Greene, W. P. Crawford
Malone, Major P. B.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Gretton, Colonel John
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Grotrian, H. Brent
Margesson, Captain D.
Waddington, R.


Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Gunston, Captain D. W.
Meyer, Sir Frank
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Huff)


Hanbury, C.
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Harland, A.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Warrender, Sir Victor


Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)
Moles, Thomas
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Harrison, G. J. C.
Moore Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)


Hartington, Marquess of
Moore, Sir Newton J.
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Wells, S. R.


Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Moreing, Captain A. H.
Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.


Haslam, Henry C.
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Hawke, John Anthony
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Murchison, C. K.
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)
Nelson, Sir Frank
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld.)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert
Wise, Sir Fredric


Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Nuttall, Ellis
Withers, John James


Herbert, S. (York, N. R., Scar. & Wh'by)
Oakley, T.
Womersley, W. J.


Hills, Major John Walter
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)
Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)


Hilton, Cecil
O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh
Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)


Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Pennefather, Sir John
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Penny, Frederick George
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Perkins, Colonel E. K.



Holt, Capt. H. P.
Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Homan, C. W. J.
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Colonel Gibbs and Major Sir Harry


Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Pleiou, D. P.
Barnston.


Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Preston, William



NOES.


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)


Ammon, Charles George
Cape, Thomas
Day, Colonel Harry


Attlee, Clement Richard
Charleton, H. C.
Dennison, R.


Baker, Walter
Cluse, W. S.
Duncan, C.


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Dunnico, H.


Barr, J.
Compton, Joseph
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)


Batey, Joseph
Connolly, M.
Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)


Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Fenby, T. D.


Briant, Frank
Crawfurd, H. E.
Gillett, George M.


Broad, F. A.
Dalton, Hugh
Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Greenall, T.


Buchanan, G.
Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)




Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
March, S.
Stephen, Campbell


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Maxton, James
Sutton, J. E.


Groves, T.
Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)
Taylor, R. A.


Grundy, T. W.
Montague, Frederick
Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro, W.)


Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Naylor, T. E.
Thurtle, E.


Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Owen, Major G.
Tinker, John Joseph


Hardie, George D.
Palin, John Henry
Townend, A. E.


Hayday, Arthur
Paling, W.
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Hayes, John Henry
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Viant, S. P.


Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Ponsonby, Arthur
Wallhead, Richard C.


Hirst, G. H.
Potts, John S.
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen


Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Purcell, A. A.
Warne, G. H.


Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Riley, Ben
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Ritson, J.
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)
Westwood, J.


John, William (Rhondda, West)
Rose, Frank H.
Whiteley, W.


Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter
Wiggins, William Martin


Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Saklatvala, Shapurji
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Salter, Dr. Alfred
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Scrymgeour, E.
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Kelly, W. T.
Scurr, John
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Kennedy, T.
Sexton, James
Wilson C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Kenyon, Barnet
Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Windsor, Walter


Lansbury, George
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Wright, W.


Lee, F.
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)
Young Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Livingstone, A. M.
Sitch, Charles H.



Lynn, William
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)
Snell, Harry
Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr. A.


Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Stamford, T. W.
Barnes.

MEMBERS' SPEECHES.

Mr. CADOGAN: I desire respectfully to ask your opinion, Mr. Speaker, on a matter which concerns the position and dignity of this House. I allude to the ever-growing practice of hon. Members during Debate addressing one another in the second person across the Floor of the House. I would ask you whether it is not an immemorial custom for hon. Members to address their remarks exclusively to Mr. Speaker, and whether you do not consider it most undesirable that this custom should be departed from?

Mr. SPEAKER: I cannot say that I wholly agree that there has been recently a growing practice such as is suggested. I believe the Chair in all Parliaments has now and then to call the attention of some Members to the Rule of the House that all the speeches should be addressed to the Chair. I should be very reluctant to admit that this Parliament is worse in that respect than its predecessors. At the same time, I agree entirely with the hon. Member that it is one of the most valuable Rules of the House, which all Members, particularly new Members, would do well to bear in mind. Of course, its importance is not realised by Members until they have sat here for some considerable time. When they have done that, they will understand how great and valuable a part it is of our traditions and practice.

NEW MEMBER SWORN.

JOHN JAMES WITHERS, esquire, for Cambridge University.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTION.

NECESSITOUS AREAS.

Mr. T. HENDERSON: I beg to give notice that, on this-day fortnight, my hon. Friend (Mr. Hayday) will call attention to the question of the position in the necessitous areas, and move a Resolution.

LONG-DISTANCE FLIGHT.

Colonel CROOKSHANK: I beg to give notice that, on this day fortnight, I shall call attention to the desirability of long-distance flight for the development of service and civil flying, and move a Resolution.

FOOD SUPPLIES.

Mr. CAPE: I beg to give notice that, on this day fortnight, I shall call attention to the question of food supplies, and move a Resolution.

RURAL APPRENTICESHIP.

Lord HUNTINGFIELD: I beg to give notice that, on this day fortnight, I shall call attention to rural apprenticeship, and move a Resolution.

SELECTION (CHAIRMEN'S PANEL).

Mr. WILLIAM NICHOLSON reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had selected the following Nine Members to be the Chairmen's Panel, and to serve as Chairmen of the Six Standing Committees appointed under Standing Order No. 47: Major Sir Richard Barnett, Mr. James Brown, Sir Cyril Cobb, Mr. Morgan Jones, Mr. William Nicholson, Mr. Samuel Roberts, Sir Robert Sanders, Mr. Short, and Sir Edmund Turton.

Report to lie upon the Table.

SELECTION (UNOPPPOSED BILL COMMITTEES (PANEL)).

Mr. WILLIAM NICHOLSON reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had selected the following Ten Members to be the Panel to serve on Unopposed Bill Committees under Standing Order 105: Major Birchall, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Cadogan, Sir Martin Conway, Captain Crookshank, Mr. Grant, Lieut.-Colonel James, Mr. Jenkins, Lieut.-Colonel Spender-Clay, and Mr. George Thorne.

Report to lie upon the Table.

SELECTION (PRIVATE LEGISLATION PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1399 (PANEL).

Mr. WILLIAM NICHOLSON reported from the Committee of Selection; That, in pursuance of the provisions of The Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 3899, they had selected the following Twenty-one Members to form the Parliamentary Panel of Members of this House to act as* Commissioners: Sir George Berry, Sir Samuel Chapman, Sir Henry Craik, Sir Patrick Ford, Mr. Hardie, Sir Harry Hope, Lieut.-General Sir Aylmer Hunter-Weston, Mr. Kidd, Mr. Kirkwood, Major MacAndrew, Sir Murdoch Macdonald, Mr. MacIntyre, Mr. Neil Maclean, Mr. Maxton, Mr. Rosslyn Mitchell, Mr. Sandeman, Mr. Skelton, Sir Alexander Sprot, Mr. James Stuart, Mr. Frederick Thomson and Mr. McLean Watson.

Report to lie upon the Table.

SELECTION (CHAIRMEN'S PANEL) (PARLIAMENT ACT, 1911).

Mr. WILLIAM NICHOLSON reported from the Committee of Selection That, in pursuance of Section 1, Sub-section (3), of the Parliament Act, 1911, they had appointed Mr. Short and Sir Edmund Turton from the Chairmen's Panel, with whom Mr. Speaker shall consult., if practicable, before giving his certificate to a Money Bill.

Report to lie upon the Table.

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY.

Considered in Committee.

[Captain FITZRoy in the Chair.]

CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1925–26.

Mr. BATEY: On a point of Order. Last night, when the Committee adjourned, you yourself were in the Chair, and you put before the Committee a Supplementary Estimate, Class VI, Vote 7, dealing with Royal Commissions. I want to ask you, seeing that you put that Vote last night, whether it is in order to go on now with something else, that Vote not having been withdrawn?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: It does not make any difference at all.

CLASS II.

MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £303,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1926, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, including a Subsidy on Sugar and Molasses manufactured from Beet grown in Great Britain, Expenses under the Agricultural Wages (Regulation) Act, 1924, Loans to Agricultural Co-operative Societies, Grants for Agricultural Education and Research, Grants for eradication of Tuberculosis in Cattle, Grants for Land Drainage, a Grant in Aid of the Small Holdings Account, and certain other Grants in Aid; and of the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew.

Mr. NOEL BUXTON: This Supplementary Estimate, under the guise of, apparently, routine expenditure, raises some questions of very high importance and some points on which the Minister has a discretion to exercise. I want, first, to say a word on the third item, the £250,000 devoted to the Beet Sugar Subsidy. That is in accordance with the Act of Parliament, but there is a point I want to make with regard to the Minister's discretion. The subsidy was granted under the Act on certain conditions. One, for instance, is the condition that in the factories a certain wage shall be paid,
and that some machinery shall be recognised in regard to wages. Morally, in my opinion, it also involves a condition affecting agricultural wages. When the Sugar Beet Subsidy was advocated from these benches, it was urged as one of the reasons for such a departure that it would have a valuable effect on agricultural wages. That, I think, was really an integral part of the sugar policy. The right hon. Gentleman the Minister might reply that wages were only affected in regard to certain farms, but I notice with interest that he made a speech yesterday, reported in the papers to-day, in which he advanced the argument that the Sugar Beet Subsidy had been of value to arable farmers, not in individual and separate cases but generally. He said that the Sugar Beet Subsidy has done a great deal to help arable farmers especially, and he is reported to have said that by the subsidy the farmers got 54s. a ton for their beet, whereas in countries like Holland, where there was no subsidy, the farmers got only 30s.
That stated the very obvious fact that the influence on the demand for labour and on farmers' profits has been generally spread over the arable area, and I find confirmation of that fact in the Report of the Ministry upon the proceedings under the Agricultural Wages Act. I find it stated that the extension of sugar beet cultivation in certain areas has resulted in an increased demand for agricultural labour and so on. I feel that the Minister should take into account this fact in exercising his powers in regard to the Agricultural Wages Act. A great point was made of retaining in that Act a Section which gives the Minister power to demand a reconsideration by the local wages committee of the rates which they have fixed, and, not to labour this point too long, I think it is generally felt that in view of the improvement that has taken place in farmers' profits, particularly in the Eastern Counties, it would be very reasonable—and it has Surprised the public that the minimum wage has not been raised above 28s.—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I must point out to the right hon. Gentleman at an early stage of this Debate that the discussion on this Supplementary Estimate must not be turned into a debate on wages. There is no particular item in
the Estimate which deals with wages, and the time to raise that question is on the main Estimate, in which an item for agricultural wages does appear.

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: Some of us are strongly opposed to the whole principle of the subsidy to sugar beet, but we are told that, it has an effect on wages, and, if in being asked to vote another £250,000 we are not permitted to discuss the arguments which are given in favour of granting the subsidy, it will be very difficult for us to proceed.

Mr. RUNCIMAN: One of the objections taken to this Vote is that it is extending the principle of the subsidy, against which he have already protested. The justification giver by the Minister has been the benefit which accrues to the wage-earners in the industry concerned. That has been one of the main grounds which he has put forward in support of the extension of the subsidy beyond the limits which were first stated in the original Vote. I submit that it would be very difficult to conduct a discussion on the extension of the subsidy without taking into account the main thesis put forward by the Minister.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: It certainly may be generally argued whether the granting of the subsidy does or does not increase wages, but detailed questions of wages certainly cannot be raised on this Vote. It would be departing from all the traditions of Parliament to discuss on this Vote a question which really appears on the main Estimate.

Mr. ALEXANDER: We have been asked to vote a further sum. When the sum was first mentioned, we asked that accounts of the subsidy should be laid. We have had certain accounts laid, and from them we could estimate the amount of the subsidy right down. When we work the figure down for the purposes of the Debate we get a certain result. For example, what is the wage on account of the subsidy given per ton or per acre to these companies? If we cannot refer to this, we shall not be able to get an answer.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I must repeat what I have said, that we cannot go into matters that are beyond the scope of the Vote.

Mr. N. MACLEAN: If you, Mr. Deputy-Chairman, are not going to allow discussion upon whether or not the subsidy affects wages, how can you comment at all upon the increased fertility of the soil or the increased capability of this industry? I submit, on a point of Order, that if you are going to permit reference to the benefits accruing to the agricultural industry from the subsidy on the one hand, you must also allow a discussion as to the benefits in the other direction.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: A reference is permissible, but not a long discussion. Such a discussion must be taken on the main Vote in which the main question appears.

Mr. MACLEAN: But if the question of wages is brought out on the one side then, in the other direction, the question of fixing the wages is permissible? We ought to be able to debate that? All that we are suggesting ought to come within the Vote, and, so far as my reading of the forms of Debate and the procedure of this House goes it comes within that category—when the subsidy can be debated here! We are debating the allocation of this money—whether the allocation be in wages or in grants—and surely that particular allocation can be debated by hon. Members who are discussing the Vote?

Mr. J. JONES: Am I entitled to ask whether it is correct that the wages of the workmen in the sugar-beet factories are getting cut down? [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Some of us are interested because our members work in them. We want to know about the wages in the sugar-beet factories. Are they not regulated by the Agricultural Wages Board? The answer would apparently be "no."

Sir FREDRIC WISE: Would not the-discussion come under the heading: "Salaries and Expenses of the Ministry"?

Mr. THURTLE: On a point of Order. May I submit that the Committee is voting a certain sum of money in the expectation that that sum is to increase agricultural wages. If the facts prove that that expectation has or has not been fulfilled, surely, in considering the
extension of the subsidy, we are entitled to bring that to the notice of the Committee?

Mr. LAMB: The right hon. Gentleman made a statement about the existing improved conditions of agriculture. Will it be in order to further elaborate and say where these are?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I have given my ruling in regard to the extent to which the debate should go. The matters referred to can be mentioned in debate, but they cannot be discussed in detail. It is for me to say how hon. Members are to develop their arguments, but if they go beyond the ruling I have given I must call them to order.

Mr. BUXTON: I have found it difficult to separate the general argument from that which you allowed in regard to the connection between the subsidy and the difference in wages and the method by which the Minister can exercise his authority one way or another. Therefore, I found it necessary to allude to his powers of demanding reconsideration from the Committee. You will, I think, allow me, therefore, without going into any detail to allude to one other matter which has been reported, that certain sugar beet factories have a notice posted up that no agricultural labourer need apply. You will allow me to ask the Minister whether he knows anything about this; if it is in connection with action by himself, or whether he is aware that the Minister of Labour has communicated on the point with the exchanges. If there be a connection between the two things, it is in this sort of way that the Minister is responsible, so that it becomes a point of administration and relevant to this Vote.
May I turn to other matters. I want to ask the Minister, before we let this Vote go through, a point in regard to the foot-and-mouth disease expenses. There are two great questions involved in foot-and-mouth disease. There is administration, and there is research. I wish he would tell us whether he has been able to record satisfactory results from the stringent action in regard to the cleaning of railway trucks, and, again, whether the standstill Orders, which I see have been made, have proved a successful experiment. In regard to
research, it is now very nearly two years since I myself appointed, what is called, the Leishman Committee. We know that research is a long matter, but we had a Report some eight months ago. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman can tell us whether any new light has been shed on the very urgent situation by the research which has taken place. Abroad I find they are talking about new methods of immunisation. In Italy, for instance, as I saw the other day, they are able now to minimise the effects of the disease, and recovery is extraordinarily rapid. It is not the Italians alone now that make us the subject of ridicule as to our very costly methods of slaughtering. The disease I think is much more virulent here than in more southern and more sunny countries. There mast, however, be a great value in keeping in close touch with the research being conducted in foreign countries, in America and in Germany. I see there are great hopes of further discoveries in Germany. Perhaps the Minister can tell us about, or give us some further confirmation of, what discoveries have been made.
I wonder also—because I myself felt when I was Minister that other things crowded in so much that this business of research was in danger of being a little unduly overlooked—whether something could not be done through the International Agricultural Institute at Home? You have other countries spending a great deal of money on research which is really a matter of international interest. Could not some system be devised for pooling expenses through the Institute—where we have able representation in the person of Sir Thomas Elliot—because the work of research could be to some extent internationalised? We have got unwelcome experience in regard to foot-and-mouth disease in the recurrence of very serious outbreaks in a short period, in 1922, 1923, 1924, 1925 and 1926, and I do not know that there has ever been such a recurrence of the disease. There is a certain danger that we may become habituated to the idea that this must always he with us. Do not let us get asphyxiated into this attitude of mind with respect to foot-and-mouth disease. I hope the Minister will keep in very close touch with the question of research.
The next item with which I want to deal is in regard to tuberculosis. I am not sure whether the figure given of 75 per cent. compensation is entirely correct. Will the Minister tell ue whether it is so in every case?

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Guinness): indicated assent.

Mr. BUXTON: Seventy-five per cent. is paid. Of course, there must be many cases where the disease could be put down very largely to the fault of the owner who may know that the cow may have been suffering for months together. I do not know whether the Minister could so modify the compensation arrangements that the incidence could be fairer? Clearly, there are some cases where compensation is more deserved than in others. I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman is using his authority in this matter in connection with tuberculosis. During the time that nothing has been done in regard to it there must have been some increase in the disease. I wonder, again, what has happened in regard to the varying and extraordinary contradictory results of the tests and whether that has held up his hands in any degree? In this matter the Minister's position is rather peculiar, because he is associated with the Minister of Health, and the public suffers from the marked prevalence of the disease.

Sir JAMES REMNANT: Has the right hon. Gentleman any test?

Mr. BUXTON: That is a matter for the Minister, and I cannot, I am afraid, answer that question. The disease is so prevalent that some say 30 per cent. of Cows are affected. The result of the prevalence of this disease is very bad on the public health through the diminished consumption of milk. In this country, consumption is something like 20 gallons per head per annum. In America it is 54 gallons. In Sweden it is 68 gallons. Ours is so low that it is urgent that things should be pushed on in that direction.
To turn to another subject, that of drainage. It is a small item on the paper, but it raises a very great problem, and the Committee are entitled to know much more than they do about the Minister's intentions in regard to spending money on drainage. We ought not to be asked to sign a blank cheque. No
doubt he will give us the information, as far as he can, and I hope it will go a long way, because we ought not to pass this token Vote without knowing much more than there is in the White Paper. In the White Paper we are told that grants will be made, but the last sentence alludes also to legislative proposals, so that it is difficult to keep off the forbidden ground of legislative possibilities, seeing that they are mixed up with the only information vouchsafed to us on this £10 vote. If we are to ask for information, it involves us in the question of what alternative plans there are and I hope, Sir, that you will give us as much latitude as possible on the question of drainage, because we are so much in the dark. It is not a question of whether there ought to be a drainage policy, but of how the money ought to be spent. It would be a, sheer waste of time to elaborate the need for drainage, for it is perfectly evident that land is going back in many parts of the country, and at a moderate estimate there are probably a million acres needing special attention. The problem of drainage, and in some cases reclamation, is as big a question as, if not bigger than, that of building.
I hope the Minister can assure us he is tackling the question of a general survey. In my opinion such a survey must be done from Whitehall. That would be far more satisfactory than throwing the burden on to the counties. Till we have a systematic survey, we do not know whether we are spending money in the directions where it is most urgently needed. There are two sides to the problem involved in this token Vote, the question of the machinery and the question of the cost And its fair incidence.

Mr. SKELTON: Before the right hon. Gentleman goes further, may I ask him how long he thinks it would take to complete such a survey?

Mr. BUXTON: I am afraid the Chairman would not allow me to go very deeply into that question. There is a large number of highly capable men available, and with a sufficient number of men on the job we could limit the period to a quite reasonable time. Everyone knows that drainage authorities overlap, and there is great need for overhauling the frontiers between them. I hope the Minister, if he intends to make grants,
will be able to use them in the direction of unifying the activities of small, and sometimes overlapping, authorities dealing with areas which ought to be treated as an entity. If he is contemplating legislation in connection with this problem, he ought, in my judgment, to confer much greater powers on public authorities to compel those who neglect their drainage to carry it out and, if they fail, to enable the authorities to do it and charge those who have been negligent. When it is a question of forming a new authority, it is sometimes possible for individuals to hold up the whole business and prevent the authority being formed. I hope the right hon. Gentle man intends to utilise county councils, and to throw much more responsibility on them.
The really difficult question arises in connection with the incidence of the cost. The Minister may say, "You, the Labour party, when in office, continued grants for drainage." We took office in the middle of the winter season, and when these unemployment grants were made they were, in my judgment, an absolutely sound policy, justified by two particular facts. One was that work for the unemployed was being sought in that emergency, and this drainage work was very useful; and, secondly, if we had attempted to put the cost on to the drainage authorities they could have replied, "This is not the sort of labour we would have employed and not the time of year at which we would have done the job," and therefore we could not impose a charge upon them. Now, as I understand it, the Minister proposes a new departure. What we did was to increase the grants of £250,000 for that season by £60,000 in order to carry the schemes on into the Spring and make preparation for the following season. The whole amount spent in three seasons was, if I remember aright., about £900,000, of which some £250,000 was recoverable from private owners.
Now, I suppose, a much bigger operation is contemplated; it is to be drainage on its merits, and not, because we want to find unemployment relief work. Therefore, before we pass the Vote, the Minister ought to assure the Committee that we are going to proceed on a really sound principle. It is a difficult thing to
harmonise strict principle in regard to expenditure of this kind, which benefits the land, with the need in practice for getting on quickly. What we can see clearly is, first, that large resources will be lost to the country if we do not act quickly or in some way stimulate the owners, the local people to act. Certain owners may be very indifferent as to whether an area of land does go out of cultivation or not, and we cannot allow that to happen in the public interest, but we cannot interfere with the private individuals unless we take new powers. While, on the one hand, the business is extremely urgent, we ought also to agree that there is a, very strict limit to what may be done in the way of spending public money. We do not want to provide by this scheme for a gratuitous betterment of the land, any more than we should want to undertake some huge urban improvement, like the creation of the Thames Embankment in Mr. Glad-stone's time—nobody would say it was a sound thing to give some gigantic betterment to individuals at the expense of the State.
In embarking on drainage schemes the Minister ought to take care that we do not do that. I would ask him to consider his own position, as I should consider mine if my neighbour were complaining in regard to the scanty acres I possess that ditches are not clean and that I ought to clean them. If the Minister is fortunate enough to own any of that delightful sandy land which he represents in the House, I do not believe he would say, supposing there ought to be better drainage, or redrainage, of that land, that the State ought to come and make a large contribution towards the expenditure. When we look at the matter in a personal way, it appears to me very easy to see that we must be extremely careful in deciding what contribution is due from the State. The Drainage Act, 1918, lays it down in regard to smaller schemes that they must not be embarked on where the cost will exceed the increase of value. It is assumed that there will be a proportionate increase in value. On the other hand, there are some schemes in which the public, as distinct from the owner of the land, clearly has an interest in seeing that drainage is carried out. In one of his recent books, Lord Ernle enumerates the things which the State
has begun to do for the farmer and owner which 50 years ago nobody would have dreamed the State would do. We must all agree that there must be a limit to the contributions the State makes when the owner, as distinct from the public, is going to gain. I think we can see that it would be almost as absurd as to make a large donation to an owner, as it would be, say, to undertake the liming of his land. There is a great distinction between a scheme of drainage and a scheme of liming, but it has even been proposed that there should be State contributions towards helping to put lime on the land. We can clearly see that we must be very careful when we get to that point.
When it comes to the question of what we ought to do, it seems to me that we ought to adhere to a principle such as this: that the contribution of the owner should be as nearly as possible equivalent to the gain that he secures. How to carry that out is for the Minister to decide. It is to some extent carried out in the contributions under the Unemployment Grants. They vary in extent as between one authority and another, and I want the Minister to assure us that he is going to adhere strictly to a principle, of that kind. Our difficulties are multiplied a hundred times because we have not got control of the land, and in my judgment there is no satisfactory method except the acquisition of the land we are draining—that would be the right way to administer this fund. Those are the points I want to raise, and I think we shall fail in our duty if we do not ask for satisfaction before we pass this Vote.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I beg to move to reduce the Vote by 5100.
The right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken made a very interesting observation on the consumption of milk in this country, in the United States and in Sweden, and, quite rightly, drew the attention of our new Minister of Agriculture to the point. Something ought to be done to encourage the consumption of milk in this country. I think one of the reasons why the consumption is higher in the United States and in Sweden is that in both those countries Prohibition is in force.

Mr. J. JONES: I think not.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Milk used to be drunk in large quantities by young people a few years ago, but now they drink alcohol. But even if young people must drink alcohol, they can drink it with milk. With regard to the pernicious practice of drinking among young women, if they drank more milk and less alcohol it would be better both for their morals and their health. The effect of the figures which have been given in this Debate show that the position of this country in regard to the consumption of milk is below the normal, and the Minister of Agriculture ought to do something to increase the consumption of milk by propaganda and by consultation with the Minister of Health and the Home Secretary.
With regard to land drainage my right hon. Friend the Member for Northern Norfolk (Mr. N. Buxton) paid a great tribute to the Liberal land scheme in his closing remarks. Of course, it is going to be absurd if, for the sake of providing employment and helping farmers, we are going to the expense of draining the land and afterwards making a present to the landlords of the improved value at the expense of the State. We have been told that there is going to be a contribution to the landlords, but I would like to ask the Minister of Agriculture if he is going to see that the landlord carries out the regulations applying to land and also carries out his duties as a landlord. Is the landlord going to have a present made to him of the enhanced value of the land through the drainage, or is it going to accrue to the State? Are the landowners whose land is to be drained going to contribute any proportion of the cost for the benefit they receive? That is a very important matter, and in the present state of land tenure we cannot go on providing drainage schemes when only the owners will benefit by it. I notice the First Lord of the Treasury is in his place drew the attention of the Financial Secretary the other day to the way in which the Estimates were presented, and I wish to draw the attention of the First Lord of the Treasury to this matter today. These Estimates are drawn up in a way which makes it most difficult for hon. Members to understand them, and I am afraid that the deliberate intention
in some cases is to mislead the Committee. Item JJ is for
Grants to Drainage Authorities to meet part of the cost of approved drainage schemes for the improvement of agricultural land.
The sum asked for is £10. What does it mean? I turn to the main Estimates, and I cannot find any item under JJ. This Supplementary Estimate is for grants to drainage authorities, and it is a totally new service and should be explained to the Committee. Supplementary Estimates ought not to be presented in this slip-shod way. What is the Department going to do with this £10? It is not at all proper that the Estimates should be presented in this very loose manner.
With regard to beet-sugar, will the right hon. Gentleman inform us how it is that miscalculations have taken place which render it necessary now to ask for a further £250,000. To me this seems very extraordinary. Is the reason because the beet factories are being put up more rapidly than was expected; or has there been a great saving by having the machinery imported from Holland instead of buying it in this country? We were told that this scheme was going to provide employment, and yet it is well known that a great deal of the machinery for this new industry has been bought abroad, just as in the case of the stamp used by the Post Office authorities for stamping on letters the words, "Buy British Goods." The same argument applies to people who urge people to buy British goods and then go for a holiday to Monte Carlo. [An HON MEMBER: "What about Ostend"!] I have only been there once since the War, and I only went over for 24 hours.

Mr. J. JONES: He brought some rabbits home with him.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: What is the real truth about the employment of agricultural labourers in connection with this scheme? Here we have agriculture subsidised by the State, and yet in regard to this scheme agricultural labourers are declared ineligible for employment. It is very unfair to discriminate against an important class of workers like this. I am against this subsidy in any case, but I shall be more strongly against it if it is being used in this way. I hope hon. Members who
represent agricultural constituencies will remember this fact. If it is true that this scheme is going to be of great assistance to agricultural labourers, is it right to lay down that these poor agricultural labourers should not be allowed to work in any of these factories in their own neighbourhood, and it is very unfair that the Government should put obstacles in their way. Surely this is a point which ought to rouse the ire of hon. Members opposite, because it is really a lapse to the days when serfs were bound to the estates and the manors. I think the Minister of Agriculture should be pressed to give an answer to this point. He may not be responsible, because he has only just taken up his office, but I think it would be a good thing for him to put this important matter right without any further delay. In order to mark our disapproval of these Votes containing these ridiculous restrictions, I hope hon. Members will support the reduction which I move.

Sir HARRY HOPE: I want to say a word or two about the money required for the animal diseases grant. Foot-and-mouth disease is inflicting enormous injury to the agricultural industry, and, in addition, very large sums of money are being paid by the Treasury. Agricultural opinion in Scotland considers that we are not taking all the possible steps which we might take to prevent the disease coming into the country from Continental Europe. In Germany, Holland, and Denmark this disease is rampant, and yet we allow hay and straw to come in from those infected countries as packing material. By the substitution of wood wool, as a packing material, instead of hay and straw, this source of infection might be eliminated. Then, in addition, German and Dutch potatoes which have been stored there and covered with their infected straw may also bring in the disease to us.
The enormous injury which the agricultural industry suffers by these continuous and continued outbreaks of disease is well known, and I think it is only right that we should take every practical step that can be taken to stamp out this disease. Up to the present time I do not think we have been doing all we might do in this direction. With regard to these land drainage grants, I am at a loss to know whether Scotland comes under them, but I should almost think it does
not. I should like to hear from the Minister of Agriculture whether Scotland is in any way going to be affected by the money which is being voted to-day under this Vote.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: I want to deal for a few moments with the question of land drainage. During the last few days I have been asking the right hon. Gentleman if he could assure the House that, in regard to the money which was to be expended on drainage schemes, the Government would have any control over the future use of the land so improved. The Minister of Agriculture has told us that, during the past three years or so, some £640,000 has been spent upon the improvement of privately-owned land, and that the Ministry of Agriculture has no control over the future use of the land or over the rent which the landlord may charge. I really think that idea is wrong in principle, and is not likely to have the desired effect.
First of all, if the land is badly drained, as was stated to-day, it would in many cases go out of cultivation altogether, and for the moment that land would be absolutely useless to the existing landowner. In the case of slum property in urban or city areas when property reaches a certain stage of dilapidation, and is no longer tenantable, you tell the landlord that he cannot enjoy receiving further rents for that property, and he must relinquish it on account of its condition, and that also applies equally in the case of any waterlogged land in this country. I agree that all parties ought to welcome any really big scheme for draining water off land which is going to increase the amount of land for arable cultivation in this country.
5.0 P.M.
I noticed, however, in reply to a question a few days ago, the right hon. Gentleman told us that, notwithstanding any improvements that may have been effected as a result of national finances having been provided, the arable acreage had been reduced no less than a quarter of a million acres between 1924 and 1925, so that there at all events we can see that whatever happens to be the best paying proposition for the moment, the producers of food or landowners work in that particular direction. It, seems to me that there may be some logic from their point of view in doing so, but from the national point of view it is entirely wrong in
principle that we should be supplying unlimited sums of money to improve land which the nation does not own.
I should not imagine that one could find a single landowner in the whole of the country who happens to be the owner of waterlogged land, who does not also own a good deal of land that is providing him with a decent rental per annum. And just as the man with two, three or more factories happens to have two factories bringing in a fair return, say, of 10 per cent. or 20 per cent. dividend, and one factory which has gone out of production and no longer up to existing requirements, if that factory owner came to the Government demanding certain sums of money before he put his old factory into production again, he would have an equal right to demand national money as has the landowner who owns 10,000 acres, perhaps 1,000 of which happen to be waterlogged at the moment. To my mind the landowner who always makes the best of his opportunities, when the land is used for the urban population, to exact the highest price either when it is used for housing or other social purposes, ought to be called upon to drain his land just as in urban areas. There is no consideration then as to whether or not bad sanitation, if improved, is going to be profitable to the property owner. When hon. Members opposite happen to be members of urban authorities or city authorities, and it is discovered by the sanitary authorities that there is insanitary property, do they send word to the property owner and ask him, "Will it be profitable to you to put your insanitary property in a sanitary condition, and, if not, will you put it in a sanitary condition if a part, say, two-thirds, of the capital required is provided?" They do not say anything of the kind. They tell the owner that he has got to comply with the local health regulations and to put the property in a fair condition, whether it is going to be profitable or not. I think that is exactly what ought to happen with large tracts of waterlogged land in this country.
The right hon. Gentleman tells us that the landowners have not increased the rent of any land that has been improved as the result of the use of national finances. He tells us that there is no further profit for the landowner. Ought the landowner to be entitled to any
further profit? Ought he, for instance, to be permitted to remain the landowner when he is not prepared to drain and remove all impediments from the land? The right hon. Gentleman, in reply to a question yesterday, said:
Some of this drainage would not in itself be economic under present marketing conditions.
I would like to ask him what he meant by that. He added:
But without it the land would have gone out of cultivation."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th February, 1926; col. 1523, Vol. 191.]
The obvious implication is this, that unless the various Governments are prepared to provide hundreds of thousands of pounds to drain privately-owned land it will slowly but surely go out of production, and men will be thrown out of work and become more and more dependent on imported food, and to that extent one will need a bigger Army or Navy, as some Members opposite always argue. That seems to me to be an entirely wrong policy. Either the nation should declare that it is going to schedule areas for the purpose of drainage schemes, and they are not going to provide money to drain land which in future will be privately-owned, or they themselves, having scheduled fairly large areas, ought to become the owners of that land.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I must point out to the hon. Member that if I allowed him to proceed with this argument it would develop into a discussion of nationalisation, and that would obviously be out of Order on this Vote.

Mr. WILLIAMS: I quite agree that the logical deduction from my remarks would mean that the only solution would be to nationalise land and drain it property, but I have no desire to pursue that particular subject. What I should like to suggest is, first of all, that these small, isolated, piecemeal drainage schemes, ostensibly for the purpose of providing work, are not only not bringing large tracts of land into cultivation and providing a fairly large volume of work, but are not having the desired effect in either one of the two directions. If we are going to contemplate the spending of large sums of money for these particular purposes, it seems to me that we could
find better ways and means than spending this money as has been the case in the past.
The right hon. Gentleman in his White Paper—and I think we all agree with this phrase—declared that one of the most serious impediments to great production was the waterlogged condition of considerable are-as in different parts of the country. Any person travelling between Peterborough and London does not need to be persuaded of that. But, again, I repeat that this land remains in the hands of people who are not interested in its drainage, and who are only waiting for the Government to come along and say: "Well, we have got such an unemployment problem that it would probably pay us better to provide money and drain your land and put some men in work than to leave these men out of work and receiving unemployment pay," thereby permitting the landowner, who is neither a patriot nor a well-wisher of his country, to employ national funds for his own purposes. Any Member who has been in this House during the last 12 months needs no persuading as to what the present Government had been doing with vested interests in various ways. No section of the community has been better treated and has received more presents at the hands of the Government than has the land owning community. This drainage business calls for a good deal of comment from the right hon. Gentleman, and he ought to be willing to tell us two things: first of all, that future drainage schemes are going to be on a large scale, and that the real intention is to extend the area of land available for arable cultivation; and, further, that he is not going to be dealing with little tin-pot schemes, finding a few dozen men work, but something that is going to be of lasting value to the nation, and that the landowner has got to see that that land is used for the production of food.
The right hon. Gentleman told us yesterday, in reply to a question, he had no guarantee of that. There is £640,000 being spent in improving privately-owned land, and actually he has no guarantee that this land shall not be used in future for the production of game or sport. I think when money is spent it should be on a big scheme, and should provide permanent and not temporary work. It should be a scheme that is going-to be of real national and permanent value, and
not one that is going to enrich the indifferent landowner, for although such a landowner may not be making bigger profits at the moment—and I think the right hon. Gentleman will not deny my argument—if he does not increase his rent beyond, a reasonable point, is there anything, in the provisions laid down under which these schemes are undertaken, which says that the landowner shall not sell the land when he desires to, and if he desires to sell it, is there anything to prevett him from taking away the value of the improvements which have been effected as the result of the expenditure of national finances? These are questions to which we are entitled to real answers, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman is going to tell us that his idea in future is to be much bigger than the ideas of his predecessors and that the landowner is not going to have the first call, and that if he gets a call at all, it should be the last.

Mr. GUINNESS: I think it will save the time of the Committee if I at once answer some of the points which have been raised. It is very pleasing to find myself in agreement with some of the arguments of the hon. Member opposite, and I can assure him that our new scheme of land drainage complies with some of the conditions which the last speaker specially laid down. What I want to make plain from the start is that that is really discussing a matter which does not arise under this Supplementary Estimate at all. We are not discussing on this new Vote anything to do with the unemployment scheme far which the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) has so little use. There was a good deal he said about tin-pot schemes.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: If I may interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, the Estimate speaks of the improvement of agricultural land, and in all his answers he refers to be schemes being undertaken exclusively for providing employment in the winter months.

Mr. GUINNESS: The hon. Member is referring to certain questions answered in the House of Commons about the expenditure under the old system. That does not arise on this. Vote, and, if I may mention it, it is not strictly in order on this Vote. Therefore, many of the
statements which he has quoted, and which are, no doubt, very apt to his argument, really do not arise on this Vote, because we are not dealing with these unemployment schemes at all, but with larger capital schemes which we hope to institute in the future. The unemployment schemes were instituted for a particular purpose, and I believe that they were justified, but they were certainly not as efficient as the schemes which we are now asking the House to sanction and which will be done, not only in the winter months, but at the best period of the year for this drainage work.
We were told by the right hon. Gentleman who opened the Debate that the State should not contribute to maintenance schemes—I think he used that word—and that in this expenditure, for which we are to-day taking a token Vote, no schemes ought to be started except major schemes, which would not be instituted by the statutory drainage authorities without assistance from the Exchequer. Before I leave the unemployment scheme, however, I think it is only fair to deal with the point raised by the hon. Member for Don Valley, that we have been looking after vested interests, and to point out that, under the administration of the right hon. Gentleman, in the case of these voluntary schemes, the landowner was only called upon to contribute 33 per cent. of the cost. If we are looking after vested interests, did not his own Government do so? Did not they do more, seeing that, since they went out of office, we have tightened the conditions, and have exacted 90 per cent. instead of the 33 per cent. which satisfied hon. Gentlemen opposite.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Surely the right hon. Gentleman will not forget that my right hon. Friend inherited those schemes from his predecessor?

Mr. GUINNESS: Not at all; he brought in the Estimates, and he was responsible for the Estimates which were in force when we came into office; and, under those Estimates, in the case of voluntary schemes, only 33 per cent. was exacted from the landowner. I do not think it is a matter of importance, and I do not, want to take it up as between one side and the other, but, when we are attacked for looking after vested interests, it is only fair to point out that we have tightened up the conditions, and
I believe that, under the conditions which have been in force, the vested interests of which we have heard this afternoon will really have got no advantage at all, because I believe they have themselves paid the full amount of the benefit which they have received.
To come to the new schemes, they will be schemes for statutory drainage authorities, and normally the State will contribute one-third of the cost. In exceptional cases there may, perhaps, be a contribution of 50 per cent. but all cases of maintenance will be strictly ruled out. We are approaching the drainage authorities. A letter will be going out shortly inviting them to send in their schemes, and we shall administer the money for which this token Vote is given on the basis of only approving for grants those capital schemes of statutory drainage authorities for which there is evidence that it would not be possible to carry them out without assistance from the Exchequer.

Mr. BUXTON: I do not want to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but, in order to make the matter clear, may I ask whether the amount of the contribution will be in the discretion of the Minister?

Mr. GUINNESS: The right hon. Gentleman knows how far it is in the discretion of any Department to make exceptions. Naturally—

Mr. BUXTON: It will not be a fixed level?

Mr. GUINNESS: The normal contribution will be 33 per cent., but, where exceptional circumstances are shown to exist, we may be able to sanction amounts up to 50 per cent., which will be the maximum. I hope the voluntary schemes will go on, although they will in future get no part of this assistance. The right hon. Gentleman asked about a survey. Circulars were sent out to all the drainage authorities, and we have now got the information, which, generally speaking, confirms that which was already in the possession of the Department. I do not think that any further steps are necessary to obtain all the facts upon which to decide on our drainage policy.

Mr. BUXTON: Were the reports from county authorities?

Mr. GUINNESS: Yes. Whether the circulars went to the statutory drainage authorities as well, or not, I do not know, but they certainly went out to all the county councils, so that the whole of the ground has been covered. The right hon. Gentleman raised the question of wages in connection with the new sugar beet industry, but I understand that I should be out of Order if I made any but a passing reference to this matter. I would point out, however, that, under the Agricultural Wages Act, it is the duty of the Wages Committee to consider what is practicable, and, naturally in deciding what rates of wages it is within the power of the industry to pay, they must take into account all the conditions, such as this new and valuable industry which has been set up. It is easy, however, to exaggerate the effect of an industry of this kind. I see that, in the right hon. Gentleman's own county of Norfolk, with 1,011,000acre—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I am afraid the right hon. Gentleman is now going outside the scope of the Vote.

Mr. GUINNESS: Then I will say no more about it, but I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that there is no reason to doubt that the Agricultural Wages Committees are taking all these matters into consideration. The right hon. Gentleman raised the point of agricultural labour not being accepted at the factories. We really cannot control that it is a matter between the factories and the farmers. In no case can the Employment. Exchanges dictate to employers what kind of labour they shall take on.

Mr. WALLHEAD: May I point out that they are doing so, and that farm labourers are barred out?

Mr. GUINNESS: The hon. Member is really misinformed. The Employment Exchanges in no case dictate to employers.

Mr. LANSBURY: They do not, dictate, but they do net send them.

Mr. GUINNESS: Some employers may say they will only take union members, and in that case the Employment Exchanges do their best to meet their requirements. I understand that in some cases the factories have made arrangements with the farmers, before
the farmers signed their contracts, that they would not make it impossible for the farmers to grow and harvest their crops by taking away their labour. This industry cannot be established except by co-operation between the factories and the farmers; it is no use building a factory if the farmers will not grow the sugar beet.

Mr. WALLHEAD: Was it not laid down by the Government, and was not the argument used in this House, that such an industry would assist the agricultural labourer to improve his position? How can he improve his position as an agricultural labourer if he is barred from the factory?

Mr. GUINNESS: I very much doubt whether it does improve the agricultural labourer's position to casualise his labour. If the agricultural labourer is working on the farm—

Mr. WALLHEAD: At low wages!

Mr. GUINNESS: At low wages, I admit—he has the expectation of continuous wages. If he goes to the factory, he becomes a casual worker for about 12 weeks in the year, and does not oven qualify by the necessary number of contributions for the receipt of unemployment benefit. Therefore, I demur to the view that it would be to the advantage of the agricultural labourer to encourage him to leave his permanent employment and, after 12 weeks, be certainly thrown out of work with no right to draw unemployment pay.

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: One point that was made was that there were in the agricultural industry a large number of people who were not fully employed all the year round, and that the factories which would be set up by the subsidy would provide work for these people. What is the ruling that is laid down with regard to agricultural labourers? Are those people who get, say, 30 or 35 weeks' work in the agricultural industry to be barred from the short season in the factory?

Mr. GUINNESS: I am sorry I have no information on that point. We do not come into it at all, any more than we do as between any other employer and the men whom he chooses to take on. Certain conditions are laid down in the Act of Parliament, which, admittedly, was drafted by our predecessors.

Mr. RILEY: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that at certain factories notices are posted that land workers need not apply?

Mr. GUINNESS: As I have said, I understand that arrangements have been made in certain cases between the factories and the farmers, but the point is that under the Act of Parliament we have no power to interfere even if we thought it advisable to do so.
The right hon. Gentleman also raised the question of foot-and-mouth disease, and asked what we were doing with regard to railway trucks. He will remember that railway trucks are a very dangerous source of infection, and we are watching the matter very carefully. Only a week ago I discussed it with some of the members of the Animal Diseases Committee of the National Farmers' Union, and we have arranged to take special steps to see that disinfection is adequately carried out.
The hon. Member for Forfar (Sir H. Hope) raised the question of packing, and suggested that, if we could import articles into this country packed in wood wool, we should avoid this danger. We went into that matter, but, in the first place, it is impossible to get direct evidence in reference to packing material. We may take sacks, boxes and containers of various kinds, and deal with them in laboratories, but it is like searching for a needle in a colossal haystack to try to find infectivity among all the vast bulk of suspected material that comes into the country. We have gone as far as we can by laying down that all these possible sources of infection in packing material shall be destroyed under certain conditions, and shall not be brought into contact with livestock, and, in other circumstances, in certain cases shall not be exposed in markets where they could possibly affect stock. The difficulty is that a very large number of our importing industries import articles which are packed in hay and straw, and, without direct evidence, it would be impossible to get those industries to agree to the inconvenience they would suffer if all these trade customs were brought to an end.
Of course, hay and straw may well be a source of infection, but there are other sources which are even more likely. We have strong evidence against migratory birds, and there is even stronger evidence
against vegetables brought from the Continent—from infected farms, perhaps—and meat brought from the Continent and from the Argentine. Certain outbreaks have been traced to the feeding of pigs with swill made from unboiled vegetables of foreign origin, or parings of imported meat. At the request of the Leishman Committee, Sir Stewart Stockman is now on his way to the Argentine to inquire into this matter, and to see whether or not effective steps are being taken to prevent carcases in the infective stage being brought into this country. The right hon. Gentleman was anxious to know what the Leishman Committee were doing. They published their first progress report last year, and this year we shall get another report showing what has since been done, but he will remember from his inquiries in the matter that you cannot turn on scientific research with the certainty that you can turn on gas and water, and you may often have to wait a long time for the result, and then find it in an unexpected quarter. I can assure the Committee that everything in the power of that Committee is being done to press on with the work, and to try to save us the odious necessity under which we now live of having to slaughter all these animals.
I was asked about the standstill Order. During its operation—it may not have been due to the order; it may have been due to other circumstances—the number of outbreaks fell from 101 in November to 35 in December and to 14 in January. We withdrew the Order in the latter part of January and, I am sorry to say, since then the condition is slightly worse. In the first half of February we have had 18 fresh outbreaks, but mostly in already infected areas and therefore probably in no way connected with the withdrawal of the standstill Order. But really, when you consider the position in other countries, I think the Committee may feel confident that our policy is justified. Taking the worst month I have mentioned, that is November, when we put on the standstill Order, in this country we had only 101 outbreaks. In Denmark, in October, there were 5,100 outbreaks: in Holland, 4,300; in France, 3,200 and in Spain, 29,500 animals were attacked with the disease. There can be no question that it is to the advantage of the community that we should be saved
this appalling loss that has been incurred in other countries where the disease has got out of control, and undoubtedly it is due to our policy that we have been able to avoid these serious developments.

Sir ROBERT HAMILTON: Are the outbreaks in Denmark equally virulent compared with our own?

Mr. GUINNESS: The figures for Denmark are pretty constant, though they fluctuate from month to month. In June they were 2,600, and they rose by October to 5,100. Of course, there is seasonal variation, which is probably due to the effect of sunshine in destroying the virus, and there is also evidence that there are two strains of infection, and animals that are immune to one strain are not necessarily immune to the other. But all this is being inquired into by the Leishman Committee. They are in close touch with the methods that are adopted abroad, but I think, in view of the complete inability of those methods to check the disease, we have neglected no means which could by any possibility be effective in foreign countries.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about tuberculosis compensation, and suggested that as we did not vary our percentage from 75 it might encourage people to keep their animals alive in an infectious state. The way we avoid that danger is by providing that the local authorities pay only one quarter of the value or, on the average, about £2 10s. compensation in advanced cases, and three-quarters of the value or, on the average, about £10 in early cases. The State contribution is three-quarters of the sum paid by the local authorities. The incentive to the owner to deal with infectious cases in an early stage is offered by the difference that is paid by local authorities in compensation. To prevent any misunderstanding in the case of these steps that are taken to deal with tuberculosis, may I remind the Commit tee that they are not designed to deal with all tuberculous cattle. They are only aimed at stamping out the actively infectious cases—cattle that fall into emaciation due to tuberculosis, and the even greater danger of cattle that suffer from tuberculosis of the udder. I believe the developments are satisfactory under this Order. Local
authorities seem to have taken it up very energetically, and for that reason we have spent rather more money in the first few months than we expected. We have dealt with rather more cattle than have been estimated, but the compensation has been rather lower. We have reason to believe that the worst cases have been dealt with first, and by the energetic measures that have been taken it is likely that the demands for compensation and the number of cattle slaughtered may be rather less in the next few months thin it was when the system was first inaugurated.

Mr. RUNCIMAN: The subheads under this Vote are not so unconnected as might appear on the surface, and the right hon. Gentleman's speech shows how closely they are related. May I refer, first of all, to the trouble that comes to every Ministry in turn dealing with animal diseases? The amount of compensation paid to farmers under our slaughter system is no more than the animals are worth, but the farmer is not thereby freed from loss. It is not a mere question of losing his stock. It means that the whole arrangements of his farm, which may have taken years to build up, are interrupted, the whole farming operations are broken down, and it very often means a complete break of continuity that was of the utmost value to the farmer and everyone dependent on the farm. This compensation payment, therefore, can never be adequate for the total loss that is incurred in the areas that are affected, and the melancholy tale the right hon. Gentleman has had to tell to-day is similar to that which has been told again and again ay his predecessors. The experience not only of his Department but of the Treasury points every year to the fact that there can be no more profitable expenditure made by his Department than in effective scientific research, which would throw further light on these mysterious diseases and, we hope, curtail their virulence and perhaps enable us ultimately to stamp them out altogether. In that I feel sure the whole Committee is united, and we must all welcome the setting up of the Leishman Committee some time ago and the activities of the Board's scientific staff.
Now I come to the connection of some of these other Votes with this very problem. We are asked, in this Supplementary
Vote, to provide another £250,000 in subsidy to sugar beet. If you compare what has been done under the Sugar Beet Subsidy with what could be done with a smaller expenditure in scientific research, the advantage to agriculture is out of all proportion. By an expenditure of £250,000 on scientific research the right hon. Gentleman's Department and his scientific officers would have been able to throw far more light on the mysteries of foot-and-mouth disease. They could, with the £1,250,000 that has been provided for the sugar subsidy, have conducted experiments in areas where it was possible to obtain complete isolation, and they would have been able to investigate in a way that is quite impossible in this country, where even the investigation area might be a centre of infection, and yet the scientific branch of the Department has been starved from the beginning. I cannot go into the expenditure of the Board's new laboratory, but it is really no credit to the Department, and still less to the Treasury, that the laboratory should be starved of money and men from its very inception.
In the days when that laboratory scheme was first started we had hoped we might be able to take toll not only of those who were skilled in veterinary science, but that we might obtain some of the young men who were trained in the region of human medicine in order that investigation might be carried on by them. Everyone who has had anything to do with research work of this nature knows that you must make the researcher entirely free from financial necessity. You must enable him to settle down and make research his life work. If he is a first rate researcher he does not require very great remuneration to induce him to stick to his job throughout his life. They obtain very rapidly a curious enthusiasm for scientific investigation, which is one of the greatest honours of a learned profession, and that, I believe, would have been one of the benefits of drawing these men into the region of animal diseases, which has been neglected by the Government because they have gone in for subsidies to individual industries, thinking they were conferring a little benefit here and a little benefit there.
They have lost their sense of proportion in the expenditure of public money. If we were able to get rid of foot-and-mouth
disease we should every year be better off by from £500,000 to £2,000,000, and we should certainly add enormously to the productivity of the soil and the number of our livestock. If you could get rid altogether of swine fever you would confer benefits not only on the large farmer but what is of equal, perhaps of more importance, on those small cultivators who have their one or two pigs. And yet the losses which year after year we suffer from these animal diseases, running up to £2,000,000, are out of all proportion to the benefits which you say accrue from these subsidies we are now being asked to vote here. That is the direct connection of subhead N.1. with subhead H.1, The right hon. Gentleman would be more profitably employed in spending money on scientific research than on the promotion of sugar beet companies. Let me draw his attention to what is now obviously the concern of people outside. The benefit that may accrue to any agricultural area from the development of beet growing and the planting down of a sugar factory is not the only thing that has to be considered. We have to consider who gets the benefit out of these grants of public money. In the first place, we know that those who grow the beet undoubtedly have been getting some benefit out of these grants, although those benefits up to the present, I believe, have been exaggerated. The main portion of the profit which accrues from these schemes goes to those who own and finance the factories, and not to the farmers. The farmers may have got some benefit out of it, but they have not got the whole or by any means the whole of the benefit.
What about their employés? As far as we can ascertain, their employés are no better off under the new system than they were under the old. May I remind the right hon. Gentleman, who has been speaking as to the men who might or might not be employed in the factories, that when the sugar beet schemes were recommended to this House one of the grounds on which they were pressed was that there was a great deal of seasonal work to be done in the factories. We were told again and again that the work in the factories came when the work on the farms was slack and that a man who might be employed 33 or 35 weeks on the farm would find the rest of the year filled up
with profitable employment in the sugar beet factory. I feel sure that the Minister of Agriculture would not think of putting up an official notice to say that agricultural labourers need not apply for work in the factories. It would be outside his official duties to do that; but somebody has been doing it. The fact remains that in some of these factories the undertaking has actually been given to the Tanners that their employés would not be taken on in the factories. That comes dangerously near a breach of faith with the House of Commons, for in the House of Commons we were told that this seasonal work would be an advantage to the dwellers in the rural areas. We now find that the thing is so administered that the actual rural worker, who has lived the whole of his We in the villages and is attached to the farms, is going to be debarred from this more remunerative work in the factories.
It is very shortsighted on the part of the farmers in these areas to restrict the employment of their employés. Nothing could be better for the farmers and for their employés than that the total annual remuneration of the men who work in the areas should be raised. They want to attract men into these areas and, in particular, they want to keep in these areas the young men who are drifting to the towns. They cannot expect them to remain in these areas if they find that they are to be debarred from employment in some of the factories because they are already working for part of the year on the farms. A combination of regular farmwork and casual work in the factories is one of the ways in which country life can be made more attractive to the rural population and it ought to be cultivated rather than discouraged by the Ministry of Agriculture.
I will not stress the main point on which we are opposed to beet-sugar subsidies. They are an example of the dangers which grow out of grants of this kind from public funds. We have seen the subsidy grow up to one and a quarter million pounds very rapidly, far more rapidly than either the Ministry of Agriculture or the Treasury anticipated. Simultaneously with that grant, guarantees have been made under the Trade Facilities Act to the companies, in order that they may be provided with the necessary capital. They are getting a double advantage. They get their capital at the
same rate that the Government would have to pay when borrowing for its own needs. They get their subsidy on the basis of 2d. in subsidy for every twopenny-worth of product they produce—a scale of subsidy without parallel in this country.
That has been carried on to such an excellent extent that they certainly have been successful in drawing into the sugar-beet business financiers and others to whom interest in sugar-beet is of most recent growth. They never thought of sugar-beet until 12 months or so ago, when it struck them it was worth while tip invest their capital in it, seeing that they could get advantages under the Trade Facilities Act and make such quicker profit as is possible by getting 2d. subsidy for every twopennyworth of sugar they produce.
Looking at the matter strictly from the financial point of view, there would be sufficient reason to say that it was bad national finance that we were not getting good value out of it; but there is the further fact that the funds at the disposal of the right hon. Gentleman, admittedly far too small at the present time, are being thrown away in less profitable instead of more profitable channels. I urge my right hon. Friend that rather than foster the extension of this beet-sugar industry he should do what he can to get some money for the extermination of diseases in this country. That would be far more important for the well-being of agriculture.
On the question of land-drainage grants the right hon. Gentleman has not given us at any great length or detail particulars of the land-drainage schemes which he has in his mind and which he projects for the future. It is clear that the general principles laid down by the hon. Member for the Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) cannot be gainsaid. If there is to be an expenditure of national money in the draining of waterlogged land, you cannot in justice allow the increased value of that waterlogged land which is to be drained to accrue to private owners, without a full contribution from the private owners. The drainage rates or drainage taxes ought to be imposed up to the full value of the added wealth of that area. There is no doubt that it would be impossible to continue to work these schemes on the basis of grants to private
owners. The grants to private must of necessity be small, and they cannot be effective.
Drainage schemes depend not on the artificial areas of estates and historical boundaries of private ownership; they depend entirely on the lie of the land. There are many private drainage schemes which have been reined because there were less enterprising people alongside more enterprising people; there was penury among some landlords just as there was a rich expenditure of money among others. The right hon. Gentleman has adopted the right plan in helping the drainage authorities. I would like to see him add to the powers of the drainage authorities. I would like them to have not only the power of drainage and engineering schemes but also the power of taxing those who benefit. He it not likely to recommend to this House schemes of land nationalisation. I have never seen any tendency on his part to step out on that road, but may I point out to him that in making these grants on these terms he is putting a strong argument in the mouths of those who believe in land nationalisation?
I can undersand that it may be profitable and beneficial to grant money for the development of great areas like the Sunk Island; but that is Crown land and every penny spent there means that the value accrues to the Crown. Some of the best land in the world is to be found there. The soil is rich. It has been enriched by drainage, and the benefit accrues to the Crown in the first place, and, secondly, to those who have the good fortune to be the tenants of the Crown, which is a most excellent combination. I do not suggest that we should transfer the whole of the waterlogged land in this country to the Crown, but short of that the right hon. Gentleman, if he is to protect public interests and not give private advantage without private expenditure, he should see that the full added value which conies from these drainage schemes should accrue to the public and not to private individuals.

Major the Marquess of TITCHFIELD: I want to raise two questions. The first relates to the localities where the sugar-beet factories are to be built. In my constituency we have the Kelham sugar-beet factory, the first and the original sugar-beet factory in this
country. It has been satisfactory as far as it has gone, but two other factories have sprung up or, rather, one has sprung up and the other is about to spring up. One is the sugar-beet factory at Colwick, and the other is the sugar-beet factory which is being built at Bardney, in Lincolnshire. These factories are, undoubtedly, rather a menace to the Kelham factory, because they will absorb, and to a certain extent they are absorbing, a certain amount of the beet that should be coming to the sugar-beet factory in my constituency. I should like to know, seeing that the Minister of Agriculture is giving a larger subsidy to the industry, whether a certain amount of control could be exercised over the places where these sugar-beet factories are going to be built.
The welfare of the sugar-beet industry is a larger question than the mere fact of one factory cutting the throat of another factory. The whole thing rests on good feeling and trust between the farmer and the sugar-beet factory owners. At the moment, the sugar-beet factories are paying 54s. a ton for their beet. That, in my opinion, is not enough. We have tried in my own home to grow sugar at a profit., but we have never been able to do so under a rate of 54s. a ton. If the sugar-beet factories would go so far as to give the growers of the sugar-beet 54s. a ton, free on rail, I believe the farmers would be really keen to grow the sugar-beet, and the industry would for ever be put on a substantial basis. If the sugar-beet factories do not pay a better price to the fanner for the sugar-beet, the farmer may turn round and say, "No better price, no sugar at all." Then all the money which the Government will have sunk in the sugar-beet industry will be thrown away.
With regard to drainage, the late Minister of Agriculture mentioned the question of efficient surveys. Efficient surveys are absolutely essential to the efficiency of drainage schemes. A great deal of my constituency lies alongside the low-lying valley of the Trent. The drainage there is carried out by a body of men who are known by the aristocratic name of the Court of Sewers. About two months ago I went into the whole question of draining that area. I cannot say that I actually saw their maps or
their surveys, but I can assure the Committee that those maps are almost hundreds of years old; they are antiques. It will be a very expensive thing to make a new survey, but I hope the Minister of Agriculture will help us in this direction, and that when he gives these grants for drainage schemes all over the country he will not forget that accurate surveys are very important things.

6.0 P.M.

Mr. DUNCAN: I was much interested in the question raised by the right hon. Member for West Swansea (Mr. Runciman) with regard to the employment, or the lack of employment, of agricultural workers in sugar-beet factories. The Minister seemed to suggest that he was unaware of what actually exists with regard to these factories. I want to read to him a notice that is now displayed at one of these beet factories, that at Felsted, in Essex. It is to this effect:
No agricultural worker applying will be started. Anyone starting and found to be a land worker will be instantly dismissed.
I am old enough to remember that in the days of my youth there was a song with the words, "No Irish need apply." I never believed that, such a condition would again arise in this country. I have always been taught to believe that this was a free country, but I am beginning to believe that it is becoming a freak country. I cannot for the life of me understand how anyone in these days can have the audacity to put up such a notice, and say to free-born English people that in no circumstances would they be allowed to work in a sugar-beet factory. To what does it amount? There seems to be—and, I think, with the connivance of the Minister—a conspiracy between the Employment Exchanges, on the one hand, and the farmers, on the other. I suppose the Minister's Department knows all about it. They must know something about it.

Mr. GUINNESS: They have no more power to interfere between the employer and the man he wishes to take on than I have or the hon. Member has.

Mr. DUNCAN: That sounds very nice, but if the money was coming out of the right hon. Gentleman's pocket, the arrangement would not last five minutes unless his will was exercised. Would it?
It is a very remarkable position, in the Eastern counties particularly. The Minister represents a very large agricultural area in this House, and one can only assume that it should be part of his business, at any rate to see that justice and fair play are dealt out to many of the people who reside in his constituency. What is the position? I am sure that he knows, as well as I know, that the lowest rate of wages paid in England is paid in the Eastern counties, in Suffolk and Norfolk, and that is a rate of 28s. a, week. He, surely, knows that the wages paid in these sugar-beet factories are very much higher than that. I have the figures here. Unskilled factory workers at Cantley, in Norfolk, are paid a minimum of 46s. a week, with an average bonus of 7s. 6d., making a weekly minimum of 53s. 6d.

Major G. F. DAVIES: How many weeks a year?

Mr. DUNCAN: What does that matter? The point I am raising is that the men who are employed in agriculture in the Eastern Counties are compelled to work for as little as 28s. a week, when there is employment available, to which they ought to have the right, at almost double the rate of wages. The agricultural labourers working for these very low wages are surely paying their share of taxation towards the amount of money that is included in this particular Vote—£250,000. Surely these agricultural labourers at 28s. a week, who are doing their best to keep their wives and children in decency, to educate them and all the rest of it have a right to some consideration. It is not only monstrous but criminal to deny employment to these people, who are just as good as any of us here. At least, some of us on the recruiting platforms did our best to make these men believe that they were just as essential to this country as anyone. These men played their part in the War, and many Members of the House went on to the recruiting platforms to induce them to join the Army. They were good enough then; we were all equal in citizenship then. It seems scandalous and wicked, vicious and preposterous to deny to these men an opportunity of the slightest shadow of advancement.
I was expecting, in this Debate, that the opposite side of the House, where are the largest numbers of those representing
agricultural constituencies, would have been packed with big battalions anxious to raise this question. Hon. Members opposite know just as well as I do that their appeal during an Election is very largely to the agricultural workers Is there any one in the House anywhere who can honestly get up and defend the conditions existing now in connection with the beet factories, or who can continue to assert that these men shall be denied the rights of free Britishers to take employment where that employment is available That is my complaint. I do not believe that the present state of affairs can be justified by anyone. The Minister has attempted, in a roundabout sort of way, not to indicate his agreement, but to slide off on very thin ice and leave the House to believe that he has no power to deal with the question. Everyone in the House knows that he is just the man who can deal with it. Hon. Members would never dare for a moment to put up such a notice as that I have read, completely barring the poorest and the lowest paid workmen following agriculture in Norfolk and Suffolk, and denying to them an opportunity of taking part in this work at high wages.
When this matter was originally introduced and discussed in the House, one of the great points made was that men who were not fully employed throughout the year in agricultural districts would be given an opportunity in the factories. What better opportunity could these men expect than this chance of finding employment at a very much better wage? It would help them to put up with the ridiculously low wages that some of thin farmers are paying them now Is it too much to appeal to the Minister to make inquiries into this matter, and to rectify what is an obvious and gross injustice to these men? I suggest that he dare not go down to his constituency and justify this conduct of the beet factories. If he does, he will find himself on the most difficult and dangerous job that he has tackled in his life. Not only do I ask him not to defend it. To me the thing is utterly offensive in a free country. One of the things that every man has a right to the greatest pride in, is the fact that this is a free country, and that every man should have the right to seek employment, not where someone else thinks fit, but where he himself thinks fit. That is my point. There is nothing unreasonable in it; I am not endeavouring to make any
unreasonable capital out of it. To me it is the most obnoxious thing that could be put into operation.
Mark again that a very considerable quantity of beet is grown in these two counties. When the matter was discussed before, we were led to believe that with the development of the growth of beet there might be expectations, where the farmers were growing beet, and in view of the prices they were getting for it—there might be expectations on the part of the men working for them of some consideration with regard to wages. It is not so. It is quite the reverse in Suffolk and Norfolk. I ask the Minister to give some attention to this matter. I hope that the House of Commons will never permit this kind of thing to continue in existence longer than is necessary. I deny the right of the Employmet Exchange, in collusion with the farmers, to create a conspiracy between—

Mr. GUINNESS: The Employment Exchange really has no more control over whom the factory will take on than it has over the trade union which will admit no more bricklayers.

Mr. DUNCAN: That is not my point at all.

Mr. GUINNESS: I know it is not your point, but it is my answer, and it shows my inability to do anything.

HON. MEMBERS: Take away the grant!

Mr. DUNCAN: There will be no need to take away the grant. A mere suggestion from the Minister that this kind of thing is indefensible, and that the House of Commons would never tolerate it, would be sufficient to wipe out of existence, to-morrow morning, the notice which I have read. I say that there is collusion and a conspiracy between the Employment Exchanges on the one hand and the farmers on the other hand to keep away from this employment the men who are working an the land, and to rivet them down for ever to the lowest possible wages. When the matter has been discussed thoroughly in this House I know that the right hon. Gentleman will desire to do the right thing. I hope that he will. It is a case where we can put him to the test. If he gets up here and justifies this kind of thing continuing any longer, we Shall have to take
other means of trying to effect a change. But he may rest assured that this thing is going to be fought very hard. The matter has already been before the General Council of the Trade Unions Congress, and they are taking a very serious view of it. I am putting this matter to the Minister in what, I hope, is an inoffensive and reasonable way, and not with a view to finding fault with hon. Members, but solely with the idea of wiping out what I regard as a gross injustice and something which is contrary to the spirit of free citizenship.

Colonel Sir GEORGE COURTHOPE: We have listened to a remarkable outburst in reference to a matter which requires a little further examination. We are told that the sugar-beet factories are excluding land workers, and the ground for that statement is a notice, which is said to have been put up at the Felstead factory, to the effect that no land workers need apply. I wish to tell the Committee, in the first place, that the Felstead factory has not yet worked and is not yet equipped, and, to the best of my knowledge, its walls are not yet up.

Mr. DUNCAN: Are there no people working there?

Sir G. COURTHOPE: There are no people making sugar-beet there.

Mr. MAXTON: But our money is being used to build a factory there.

Sir G. COURTHOPE: What I object to is that an accusation should be made that the sugar-beet factories have been excluding land workers from coming in during the hundred days campaign at the high wages.

Mr. DUNCAN: Do you deny it?

Sir G. COURTHOPE: I deny it absolutely. I am not personally connected with all the factories, but I am a director of three of them.

Mr. LANSBURY: I do not think you should speak, in that case.

HON. MEMBERS: Order!

Mr. LANSBURY: On a point of Order. Is it in order that an hon. Member who is financially interested in businesses should rise in this Committee to defend the expenditure of public money which will benefit the companies of which he is a director?

The CHAIRMAN (Mr. James Hope): Not only is it in Order, but under the circumstances I should have thought that it was almost necessary.

Mr. LANSBURY: Is it not the case that, except in regard to limited liability companies, a member may not be interested in the expenditure of public money or occupy a position where he may be benefited by such expenditure? Why should the hon. Baronet be entitled to stand up and say that he is a director of a company which is to be assisted by the Vote we are going to make? If it were done in a board of guardians, it would mean imprisonment.

Commander WILLIAMS: If the directors of a company are to be ruled out in a case like this, surely the leaders of the miners union are similarly ruled out.

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) apparently has in his mind the case of a member who tales a personal contract. There is no possible rule of Order against members who are personally interested in companies as directors or shareholders, from expressing their views on any matter of this kind.

Mr. LANSBURY: My point is that an hon. Member who is interested in a company which is to benefit by the expenditure of the public money, ought not in common decency to take part in a discussion of this kind, having regard to the regulation to which the Chairman refers. I repeat that on a local authority this sort of thing would bring a man to prison.

The CHAIRMAN: There is no point of Order involved. The hon. Baronet is perfectly entitled to speak, and, if he is a director of the company impugned, I should have thought it was most desirable that he should speak.

Mr. THURTLE: Is it not the fact that this subsidy may be considered to be a contract between the Government as such and the owners of the sugar-beet factories? If that be so, does not that constitute a direct financial interest? And is it not against all the proprieties of the House that anyone with a direct financial interest in such a contract should take part in the discussion?

The CHAIRMAN: If the hon. Member wishes to argue that the hon. Baronet has forfeited his seat and made himself liable to severe penalties, there might be a means of raising that question, but it is certainly not out of order now for the hon. Baronet to proceed with his speech.

Captain GARRO-JONES: I desire respectfully to add to the submissions which have been made, and in doing so, I wish to cast no aspersion at all on the hon. and gallant Baronet. It is simply a question of the Standing Orders. On page 121 of the "Manual of Procedure," I find it stated that a Member may not vote on any question in which he has a direct pecuniary interest. If he may not vote, is he not equally committing a breach of the Rules if he takes part in the Debate?

The CHAIRMAN: If the hon. and gallant Member will turn to Page 374 of the latest edition of Erskine May's "Parliamentary Procedure" his question will be fully answered.

Sir G. COURTHOPE: I apologise for being the unwitting cause of these interruptions. I have not the least shame in speaking on this subject, and I think the fact that I am a director of these companies will convince hon. Members opposite that I have the necessary knowledge to refute—so far at all events as the companies with which I am connected are concerned—the assertions which have been made from those benches. With regard to the factory which is in process of erection at Felstead. I know nothing about it, but I will say quite frankly that if a notice of that kind was put up there—I do not dispute the fact, but I have no knowledge of it—I consider personally that it was not only a foolish, but an improper thing. If I had anything to do with the company, and if the fact that such a notice was being put up came to my knowledge, I should use my best endeavours to prevent it. With regard to the general statement as to the effects of these factories on rural employment, the Committee might come to the conclusion from this Debate that little or no employment was being given in these districts at all. On the contrary, wherever these factories have been at work, the additional employment
afforded has been so great that there has been a general complaint of a shortage of labour. All the available labour has been absorbed either in growing the beet on the farms or in the work of the factories, and there has been a definite shortage. On that I can speak from personal knowledge. It may interest hon. Members opposite to hear in round figures the amount of employment which has been given. The factories for which I have definite figures have given employment to 627 men in each factory. I have the total figures for four factories which employed 823 skilled and 2,185 unskilled men throughout the whole of the beet sugar campaign—an average of 627.

Mr. SNELL: In what year?

Sir G. COURTHOPE: The campaign is just over. If you apply that average to the 10 factories—I do not know if it is fair to do so—you get an employment of over 6,000 hands in the factories. I have also figures as to the cost of labour in the cultivation of the sugar-beet crop over a considerable acreage, and the labour costs work out at £8 14s. per acre for that acreage, and if you take that average over the whole 56,000 acres which were under beet last year, you will find that approximately £500,000 has been paid in wages to labour in sugar-beet cultivation.

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: Would the hon. and gallant Baronet tell me from where he gets the figure of £8 14s.? I am interested, because of the Oxford report as to the amount of labour required for lifting and filling.

Sir G. COURTHOPE: I have included in these figures the largest farm on the Kelham estate, where 211 acres were grown, and there were several other smaller farms including one of my own, and I have taken an average figure. It represents the wages of labour on the farms, and that includes the labour employed in carting off the fields, but not transport beyond that point. An average of 1,426 men per factory was employed during the period of erection of the factories. I do not suggest there is any special value in these figures, but they indicate that the establishment of these factories has given a substantial amount of new employment.
I should have thought this would have caused hon. Members opposite to welcome these factories rather than criticise them on what I hope I have shown to be exceedingly hollow grounds.

Mr. SPENCER: I should like to bring the Debate back again to the question of the grant in respect of foot-and-mouth disease. I am nut convinced by the speech of the Minister as to the happy position in which we find ourselves compared with other countries. Before going into the heart of the question, I wish to put two points to the Minister. In the first place, what oversight is exercised regarding straw which is conveyed from place to place in trucks? Quantities of straw are moved about in trucks and much of this straw finds its way to small holdings and other places. What power has the Minister to interfere with the removal of straw from centres which may have been infected to other parts of the country. My second point relates to the importation of Irish cattle. It has been said, probably with truth, that there is no evidence that the disease is brought over from Ireland to this country and I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman has he been able to trace the migration of the cattle from the port to the respective farms. I am informed—I will not say whether it is good or bad authority—by farmers that the worst of the Irish cattle that have been ill-fed are more likely to be susceptible to disease and a source of infection to the rest of the cattle in the community. I would like to ask whether the right hon. Gentleman has any knowledge on that point, because if you have starved cattle coming into the country, and the country is in a state of infection at various points, and that starved cattle is passing through those points, the possibilities are that it may contract the disease and take it from one place to another. As a matter of fact, he does know that cattle that has been taken from point to point has been the means of spreading the disease very widely in this country.
I am not at all sure that the course that we have been pursuing in the last four or five years has proved as efficacious as one would desire. The right hon. Gentleman stated that in Holland, in June, they had about 2,000 outbreaks,
while we had in this country, in November, only 101. I put a question to the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor last June, July, or August, and he told me then that we had not a single case of fort-and-mouth disease in this country—I think it was in August—but notwithstanding that fact we had in November 101 outbreaks here. Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us where these outbreaks arose, and whether the course that we have been pursuing, the policy of slaughtering, which has made this Vote so essential again tonight, is proving as efficacious as it might do? In 1922, the Committee that sat on the subject definitely said in their Report that the policy that was then being pursued was bringing us within reasonable limits of the end of the disease, but, as a matter of fact, as time proceeded, all their prophecies and prognostications were falnified, because in 1922 there were 1,140 outbreaks in this country, and in 1923, when the 1922 Committee thought they saw the end of the disease, we had no fewer than 1,929 outbreaks here, costing us no less than £2,200,000 in compensation. I submit that this continual slaughtering of all cattle, both the cattle that: is affected and that which is not, is not proving efficacious in stamping out the disease, and those who are brought most into contact with the disease from time to time very seriously question the policy which is being pursued. This is a remarkable resolution to find coming from a rural district council composed largely of farmers. It was passed in Cheshire at the time when the disease was most rampant, and is as follows:
That this Council, having jurisdiction over 34,253 acres of agricultural land, views with great dismay the wholesale slaughtering of cattle now taking place in its district, and urgently and respectfully appeals to the Minister of Agriculture to stay his hand, especially having regard to the failure of the extermination policy to stop the spread of the disease.
The right hon. Gentleman's predecessor asked, I think, for £39,000. That was an indication at that time that they thought the no-called preventive measures were going to be effective, but once more they have proved ineffective. I suggest that the history of foot-and-mouth disease is this, that for 40 or 50 years we have had recurring periods of an extreme spread of the disease and then of comparative quiet. When the right hon. Gentleman
was going through his last election he was questioned with regard to foot-and-mouth disease, and he pointed, quite rightly, to the fact that when we had no such thing as this slaughter policy, in 1883, we had no fewer than 18,732 outbreaks, but he forgot to tell his audience this fact, that with the measures adopted by the then Ministry to prevent the spread of the disease, by 1886 there was only one single outbreak in this country, without any slaughter policy at all. The facts are that in 1883 we had 18,732 outbreaks, in 1884 it had come down to 949, in 1885 to 30, and in 1886 to one single outbreak, and that was without adopting this wholesale slaughtering policy.
I suggest that it would be better to stay our hand with regard to cattle that is not affected. These large sums of money that we are voting from time to time are not having the desired effect. I have made it my business to speak to as many farmers as I could come in contact with, and nearly every farmer expresses the opinion that slaughtering should end with those cattle that are affected, and that, instead of giving the farmers compensation for slaughtering their herds, we should give them compensation for saving their herds. It is not only voting a large sum of money, but it means that so many head of cattle have been unnecessarily slaughtered. No wonder meat is dearer and we have the cost of living at the standard at which we find it, because during the last four or five years there has been a Wholesale slaughtering of the cattle of this country. We have slaughtered no fewer than, in round figures, 140,000 cattle, 78,000 sheep, and 61,000 pigs, and no hon. Member can get up in his place and say that such a wholesale slaughter has not had an effect upon the price of meat, because everybody knows that it has. I suggest that, notwithstanding all that has been said by the Food Committee that sat in 1922 and 1924, even in the 1924 Report you had the testimony of farmers that if they could have their way they would isolate the cattle. In my opinion, if you stopped this wholesale slaughtering and slaughtered only the affected animals, and said to the farmers: "We will give you 25 per cent. of the value of every beast that you can save," it would be to the advantage of this country in two ways. It would, first of all, save us a great amount of money, and, in the
second place, it would keep for us a great deal of the stock which is having to be slaughtered at the present time.
I do not wish to do a single thing that would adversely affect the farming interests, but there is, even among the farmers themselves, a suspicion that the policy we are now pursuing has in some quarters actually encouraged men to seek the disease. There have been cases, and there has been one case that I know of, where an unscrupulous—I will not call him farmer, because it would be an insult to a great industry to do so—man was actually found cutting a calf's foot and mouth on purpose to deceive an inspector, in order to show that it had the disease, because he wanted his cattle slaughtered. I am pleased to say that these are rare cases, and that no real gentleman or farmer would attempt to do a thing like that, but it is a temptation to a man whose cattle have got any form of disease or whose cattle are not of the standard that they ought to be, to try to get foot-and-mouth disease upon his farm, so as to get rid of his cattle at the expense of the State. I think that the policy we are pursuing is not the right policy.
In conclusion, I would like to say a word to reinforce what has been said by the right hon. Member for West Swansea (Mr. Runciman). If we had spent a tithe of the money upon research that we have spent on compensation, we would probably have got rid of the disease by now. When we come to think of it, we do not know exactly what we are dealing with in this disease, we have not isolated the particular germ which gives rise to the disease, and we are playing with something we know nothing about. The only way to get to the bottom of it is to make a larger grant for the purpose of investigation along these lines, and I sincerely hope that sooner or later we shall make a change, but, whatever we do, I suggest that the Minister should do all he can to extend research into this question and give every man, every layman if you like, who has a specific, not for curing, but for prevention, a fair trial. It is alleged against the Ministry that Dr. Shaw and others who claim to have a specific for prevention, not for cure, have not had a real and fair trial given them, and I suggest that if there be any ground of truth in those allegations, the Ministry should
be condemned for it. I do not know whether there is or is not any truth in them, but I make bold to make this statement, that wherever there is anyone, whether a qualified veterinary surgeon, or a mere doctor, or a layman, who claims to have a specific, as Dr. Shaw did, for the prevention of this disease, he should be given the greatest possible chance of proving whether or not the specific is what he claims it to be.

Mr. DEAN: I make no apology for intervening in this Debate, because on all three matters which are before the Committee I claim to have some knowledge. I wish to take, first, the question of land drainage, and I must confess that I was rather surprised to hear the right hon. Member for North Norfolk (Mr. Buxton) compare land drainage and the policy of the Government in that direction with the liming of land. So far as the liming of land is concerned, that is a question which affects the private owner, but, so far as drainage goes, if the Government see fit, as I believe they will, to advance a certain amount of money to different drainage boards, those boards having to find an equal amount of money, then land will be brought into a higher state of cultivation, will be able to produce more food, will be subject to a greater taxation, and will bring in a greater income to the people of this country. We are told by our friends the Opposition that if you do that, you are going to do something for the benefit of the landlord. During the time I have been in this House, I have been rather tired of hearing that we are going to do something for the benefit of the landlord, because I believe—and I claim to have sufficient knowledge on the subject—that the landlord has been more sinned against than sinning, and I think it is high time that somebody was not afraid to speak for the landlord. I would not speak for the landlord unless I believed I was speaking for the benefit of my countrymen, but the time will surely come, if we are going to crush the landlord, and accept the policy of hon. Members above the Gangway or the policy of hon. Members below the Gangway—

The CHAIRMAN: The policy of hon. Members above or below the Gangway would require legislation. Neither policy can be developed now, nor the arguments against it.

Mr. DEAN: I apologise. I am afraid I was led away by my enthusiasm for the
agricultural interests, but I would like to say that if, as I assume, it is the policy of this Government to find money for land drainage to assist boards who are willing to find an equal amount, it will be of great benefit not only to farmers, not only to agriculture, not only to labour, but also to the country. There is one other point before I leave land drainage. I believe at the present time the county councils may, if they see fit, order a man to cleanse his private dike in order that an occupier or owner may get access to the main tributaries of a river. I would like to ask the Minister if in the future it cannot be an instruction to the county council that they shall order a man to cleanse his drains in order that his neighbour shall get access to the main drains.
I would like to say something in regard to the Diseases of Animals Act and foot-and-mouth disease, and I would like to compliment the hon. Member for Forfar (Sir H. Hope) on what be said with regard to the importation of goods into this country, packed in straw from infected areas. So far as we are dealing with cattle disease in this country at the present time, I know there are many who think we are doing too much, that our restrictions are hampering the farmers, and that we should curtail those restrictions would like to suggest that if any alteration is to be made in those restrictions, they should be made more stringent, but that they should be made in a different way. We have restrictions in regard to particular districts in this country where the disease exists. My hon. Friend who spoke last referred to the enormous amount of money that this country has paid—I believe £2,200,000 in one year—for compensation, but does he realise the amount of inconvenience and the amount of loss that a farmer suffers whose live-stock has not the disease, but who, owing to the restrictions, is unable to move his stock. His market is lost. He has no food to give those animals. He has no claim whatsoever. We hear the farmer complain. I would like to know whether any other business man put in a similar position would not complain. At the present time, in my particular district in Lincolnshire, there are men with large flocks of ewes, and they are actually buying mangolds at a high price and paying a heavy rail charge on the same. They take these to their ewes, because
they are not allowed to move their sheep even to shelter. I am not saying it is wrong, but am pointing it out. People wonder where the disease comes from. They wonder, with all these restrictions, we have so much disease in this country.
The only wonder is that we have not more disease. As my hon. Friend the Member for Forfar suggested, we have bulbs in straw in packing cases, and potatoes in bags, coming from where the disease has been rampant. They come in day by day. We would not be allowed to move these things out of our infected areas, and yet they are allowed to bring them into this country. I know it will be said that I am side-tracking the question of protection for food, but I am merely pointing out that the only way to safeguard the food production of this country is to protect ourselves against disease from foreign countries. In every small market in England we see Dutch bulbs packed in straw in cases, and we see them sold by auction. We see cattle in the same market, and then you are surprised to find cattle disease. We see Belgian bottles packed in straw arriving in this country, and the veterinary surgeons immediately using them for drenching cattle. Then there is surprise that we have foot-and-mouth disease. The only surprise is that we have not more disease. I want to impress upon His Majesty's Government that we will support them with all our energy in order, at all costs, to stamp out the disease in this country permanently, in order that we may be rid of the scourge.
We have heard a great deal with regard to sugar-beet, and with regard to the men's wages. It has been suggested—and I am very sorry, because generally I do not think the farmer should be blamed—that in Norfolk the wages are no better to-day than they were before the sugar-beet factories were erected. I would like to remind my hon. Friend that Norfolk and the Eastern Counties in particular have had a very bad season. The goods they have had to sell have produced a small amount of money, and if I am not mistaken if it had not been for the money they had to take for their sugar-beet, they would not have received sufficient money from their other crops to continue paying their labourers' wages. This applies to the Eastern Counties. It has been suggested
that the factories put out notices that they would not take farm labourers away from farms. There is another reason for this, which is, that when the sugar-beet requires harvesting the farm workers have spent a considerable part of the year in growing that beet, and if directly the sugar-beet factory opens the farm hands are to go into the factories, where are the men to come from to harvest the beet? There must be a certain amount of co-operation between the factory and the farmer to ensure that the factory will get a reasonable supply of beet to keep the factory running, and he must have the farm worker to do this, otherwise the factory will be idle.
7.0 P.M.
It has been suggested that the farmer is making a great amount out of sugar-beet, and that the capitalist is also getting a very great amount of money from it, while labour is getting nothing. I deny all those three statements. With regard to the man who builds the factory, unless he can get his capital during the time of the subsidy, it will be impossible for him to continue after the subsidy has ceased, and, therefore, he has to make a good profit out of the business during the subsidy period. I stand here as an authority upon this question at the present moment, as we are particularly anxious to get a factory in a neighbourhood very near where I reside, and we have had very great difficulty in raising the capital, because the owners of capital are not certain that they will be recouped in time in order to make that building a permanent success. I think I heard an hon. Member say that farmers will not grow it. That is not true. There are 6,000 acres of beet contracted ifor in that particular district to deliver at that particular factory, and we have been unable to find financiers with sufficient capital. I think that is conclusive evidence that it is not any one particular person—or industry—who is getting a greater share than he ought to have. This industry was started by hon. Members who now sit on the Government side of the House. It was supported and carried through by hon. Members who now sit on the Opposition side. Every credit is due to them for that. Is it worth while, having started it and carried it on, supported by all sides of this House, at the last moment, be the purposes what they may,
for anyone in this House to raise any objection to what has been done either by the party on this side or the party opposite?

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: The speech to which we have listened, I am sure very attentively, and enjoyed for the way it was delivered and not for what was said, takes us back to the point when the question of beet sugar was before the House and Committee last year. The position the hon. Member has outlined regarding sugar beet in his area is just the sort of thing we foreshadowed when this proposal to subsidise the industry was first introduced. All that has happened since only goes to confirm that. He says people in that area are unable to get capital for the industry because the people who would otherwise lend capital are not satisfied that they are going to recoup themselves as the subsidy is withdrawn. That is the basic argument that we used all the way through. I think the various reports which the Minister has received since, if he were perfectly frank with the Committee on the matter, would show that at the end of three years, when the present high rate is supposed to come to an end under the Beet Sugar Act, he will either have to continue the subsidy at the high rate, or else not only existing factories but all the projected factories will be no use at all, and the sugar beet industry will come to an end. I have been very intereseed in reading through the report of the Oxford Committee. I notice from that report that there are very serious qualifications as to the amount of labour which can be employed in the sugar beet industry.
I also notice that one of the chief hindrances to the wide development of the industry in the future is stated to be labour costs, and the Oxford Committee, giving a figure, I think, of just over £11 an acre as the cost, say, that after careful examination, if there is to be any effectual reduction in the future, it is to be in the labour costs. Those who are organising the new workers in the sugar beet factories would do well to note the Report of the Oxford Committee with regard to costs in the industry. Insofar as companies have been first granted facilities under the Trade Facilities Act for guaranteeing interest on capital, and secondly, have been given this large
subsidy, we argue that they will be able to recoup themselves entirely so far as their capital expenditure is concerned out of those provisions. I have here a paper dated 4th January, 1926. It is called the "Public Ledger," and this is what they say about it:
During the first of four lavish years the two old factories Cantley and Kelham, with Colwich in part, manufactured 23,000 tons. During the second year now coming to a close those three, along with the additional factories then completed for work, hope to make the quantity 50,000 tons. Capitalists expect that the profit to be earned during the existence of the subsidy will prove more than sufficient to repay the whole of their capital and outlay.
That is the opinion of a City of London financial paper. What many of my hon. Friends on this side, who from reasons which they are always ready to support and for which I can give every respect, would have laid down if they had been on the Government Benches is what we concluded for last year and that was, that if this great sum of money was to be voted year after year by way of subsidy, and if as is now shown by a competent financial paper that sum will recoup the whole of their capital outlay, then in the name of common sense the capital assets created should not be private capital used for further exploitation for profit but should be the property of the community which has voted the money. So far as we are concerned to-night, we shall be bound to oppose a vote of this kind which is going to add to that sum without any corresponding share being created for the community which has to vote the money.
There is another point I want to put. The more this grant is increased the more a vested interest is created in retaining a tax upon food in this country. When the Labour Budget of 1924 was introduced and a very considerable part of the Customs Duty on sugar was removed, we saw the advantage immediately. We had a great increase of employment in all the trades which were connected in any way with sugar and in which sugar was used as an ingredient. It increased the purchasing power of the people, and there are many of us who will never give up fighting until we have removed every kind of tax which has been imposed on the food of the people. Yet this scheme which we are asked to extend to-night is going to create a vested interest for retaining the tax upon
sugar. The Minister knows, and every Minister who follows him will know, that if under this scheme he removes the customs duty from sugar he will immediately have to compensate the people in the trade by increasing the subsidy to make it up. From that point of view, we oppose it, because it contains a vested interest in keeping a tax on the food of the people.
I have been watching very carefully during the past 12 months since the Act has been in operation whether the increased production of sugar in this country would make any effective difference to the import of sugar from abroad. As a matter of fact, although we have been subsidising home sugar so heavily during the last 12 months, when I look at the actual figures of imports I discover that we have actually imported and retained for use in this country something between 5,000,000 and 6,000,000 cwts. more than the previous year. In the years that are coming now, as the German sugar-beet industry and the Czechoslovakian beet industry grow, you will have a larger import of beet sugar to contend with, and there is no indication at all that the present low price of sugar is likely to shift from that spot except to go downwards with an increased world production.
On the general question, even the roost optimistic authorities on this question have never estimated that we should be able to produce at the maximum more than 600,000 tons of sugar a year in this country. We need to retain very much more than that for our own use. As a matter of fact, the 600,000 tons that you might ultimately produce by the subsidy will do no mere than cancel out what we are getting to-day from our own Colonies. We are getting to-day just about 600,000 tons from the Colonies. Here is the position. We are paying to-day, for imports from the West Indies, £24 per ton for sugar, and we are giving a subsidy of £22 per ton on home-produced sugar. As regards sticking to the letter of the law under the Act of 1925 at the end of two or three years the subsidy should be decreased, and at the end of 10 years wiped out altogether, but you have only to look at some of the authorities quoted in this Report, which has been so kindly published by the
Minister of Agriculture, to see what is likely to happen. On page 52 it says:
Sir Daniel Hall has also recently stated that prices must fall as the subsidy is reduced until they range with the prices paid on the Continent in countries where the beet sugar industry obtains no assistance. What that price will be depends on many factors, but on the present showing it will not be safe to count on more than 25s. to 30s. a ton.
What does the Minister think of that statement of his expert adviser? Is the Minister prepared to go to the argicultural constituencies and say the Government will withdraw the subsidy under the Act or reduce it when the farmers cannot hope to get from the promoters of sugar-beet factories more than 25s. or 30s. a ton. I wonder if they will go on growing beet? He knows that when the period is up he will either have to face the question of the sugar-beet industry, once more absolutely slumping, or continuing the uneconomic subsidy of £22 per ton to a commodity you can import for £24 per ton. We did not give enough attention to the economic aspects of this question when we were rushing it through the House last year. As regards the effect on the producer himself, I take first of all the farmer. The Noble Lord the Member for Newark (Marquess of Titchfield) says he has carried out experiments in his own locality in an area where they had a wide experience of sugar-beet growing, and he has never been able to make a profit on sugar-beet at a price of less than 52s. a ton.
What is the position? When you take the public accounts which are being presented in the White Paper to this House, and work out the amount paid to the companies by way of subsidy, you find, as a fact, that the subsidy paid on sugar has been actually more per ton of beets than is paid per ton to the farmer for his roots; so that the subsidy is actually more than the actual amount the farmer receives. The sugar-beet factories, through the subsidy, get practically the whole of their raw material for nothing! There is a great deal of point in the plea put forward by the Noble Lord who spoke a while ago for certain of the areas affected, that if that was the way the subsidy operated there was a case for the farmer asking for more. The trouble will be that if the farmers of this country are induced
to go in for the wholesale production of sugar-beet on the basis of that subsidy, then you will inevitably be faced with having to Continue the subsidy when the time comes. You will go on as you have apparently decided to go on in other industries—feeding the dog upon his own tail once more. So much for sugar-beet.
I just want in a word or two before I close to put to the Minister the item in regard to the estimated cost and working of the Tuberculosis Order. As I said in the Agricultural Estimates Debate last Bank Holiday, I have nothing but sympathy for the expenditure of money which will tend to eliminate tuberculosis from our herds. In fact, I believe the sum estimated by the late Minister who wanted £50,000 is a very small sum to effect the eradication of tuberculosis from herds like the British herds, which suffer so largely from the disease. But we are not quite satisfied in some ways. I have had a number of complaints from farmers concerned that they are not being fairly treated. I do not for a moment say that cows badly wasted ought to have heavy compensation. But I have had one or two cases brought to my notice of good cows on good farms in which the compensation has been exceedingly low. I wish to ask the Minister whether he is satisfied that the arrangements for assessing the compensation due to be paid to the farmer for tuberculosis are quite satisfactory? There may, perhaps, be a question of locality. Perhaps some localities are being better worked than others: but certainly in the part of the country to which I am referring—I am speaking of parts of Lincolnshire—I have had serious complaints.
There is a second point which I wish to put to the Minister because the right hon. Gentleman may depend upon it that those of us who are interested in the consumer's case in regard to food in this country will not leave the point until we get more satisfaction. If we are to pay public money in compensation for the destruction of an animal suffering from tuberculosis we hold the view that no particle of that animal should be sold for human consumption. We fought that fight last August. The Minister of Agriculture gave us the very slight concession that where the animal had been condemned by the local veterinary surgeon the carcase should not be removed for sale for human consumption
unless it had first been seen by the medical officer. We were very thankful for that very small concession, but it is a very small one indeed. I cannot help thinking that if we pay money out of the Exchequer to compensate the farmer for the total loss of his animal, then it, is perfectly out of reason that the animal which has been condemned for tuberculosis should be offered for sale to our people for human consumption. I am persuaded that before many years are over we shall have to move the Ministry on this point.
There are three questions which I should like the Minister to answer before the Debate comes to a close. In the first place, has he any hope ultimately of the economic success of the sugar-beet industry without the benefit of the subsidy? If not, then the Government has no right to lead farmers into a cul-de-sac in that direction. Secondly, will he tell us whether he is satisfied that the arrangements made for assessing the compensation for animals ordered to be destroyed are satisfactory? Thirdly, will he tell us whether he is getting any nearer to the desirable state of preventing the carcases of tuberculous cattle, for the slaughter of which his Department pays compensation, from being sold for human consumption?

Mr. EVERARD: Some of us who know something of what has gone on during this last year cannot but feel that a good deal of thanks is due for the work of the Ministry of Agriculture during that period. I would refer to three very important alterations that have been made in the working of the Regulations. First of all, as to the importation of packing material. Secondly, with reference to the Standstill Order which, I believe, has had a great deal to do with the curtailment of the disease. The third point, which is one of very great importance, is the recent Regulation which the Ministry has just brought into operation whereby all those who keep live-stock have, to keep a proper record of the movements of that stock. That appears to me to be putting on the farmers and the live-stock keepers of the country a very great responsibility and a very much increased amount of work which they are not ordinarily accustomed to perform.
I submit that, in asking them to do that, the Ministry should also take into account what has already been put forward
by an hon. Friend, which is that some method should be found by which it should be possible to reduce the burdens which the farmers have in this country. Farmers ought not, in the matter of foot-and-mouth disease, to have these very large restricted areas which are put on in the case of isolated outbreaks.
There is nobody with any knowledge of the disease who would not wish to see a wide area, scheduled in the case of an outbreak in a market. But in the case of small, isolated outbreaks, which have taken place up and down the country I really do think that to put on a, 15-miles area and keep it on for a fortnight, and then to reduce it to a five-miles area, is putting on too much restriction on the people who have not themselves got the disease in their establishments. So far as my division is concerned—and I can only speak for the town of Melton,—in the outbreak in 1923, the chairman of the urban district council publicly stated that the expenditure was £100,000 owing to the large area scheduled, and the actual closing of the cattle market made an increase in the rate of 4d. in the Surely, we ought to consider most carefully in a case of this kind whether this very large area is having the beneficial effect supposed or desired. I see from the Report of the last Departmental Committee set up that, in paragraph 95, there is the following sentence:
Any slight danger consequent upon the early reduction of areas would, in our opinion, be substantially reduced by compulsory registration of the movements of stock.
We have got this compusory registration of the movement of stock. Therefore, that argument put up by that Committee has fallen to the ground. In my opinion we should be just as well off, if not considerably better off, in this country if we made the areas smaller to start with and protected them much better, as they could be. In the country districts there are only a certain number of police, how is it possible for them to see that there is no movement of the stock in an enormous area covered by a 15-miles radius.
Surely it would be much better if we could keep these small areas of two or three miles in the case of an isolated outbreak
and see that the restrictions were preserved under the severest penalties. I would also submit that something more might be done in the matter of the disinfection of infected premises, and other measures taken by means of straw sprinkled with disinfectant and put down on the main roads which are adjacent to the area surrounding the infected premises. By these means we should do far more to eradicate this terrible disease among cattle in this country than by isolating large areas and putting the farmers to enormous pecuniary disadvantage, and particularly those farmers who are not in the least affected by the disease. At the present time the farmer who is not affected by the disease is worse off than the man who actually has it. If the Regulations reduced the area, I think it would be much better for the eradication of the disease, and certainly better for all the parties concerned.

Sir R. HAMILTON: Before the Debate closes I should like to ask the Minister of Agriculture to give us a little further information in regard to the proposed land drainage scheme. Behind this Token Vote lies a most important matter—this new departure on the part of the Ministry. I listened very carefully as to what the Minister had to say about it. I think we all heard with pleasure and agreement the general principles laid down by the hon. Member for the Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) as to the drainage schemes subsidised by the Government. The first question I should like to ask the Minister is in regard to the schemes which he has in view, whether they apply to Scotland as well as to England, and the amount of public money likely to be expended on them. I shall be glad if he can see his way to give us some idea as to the scheme by which the matters are to be financed. At present we are entirely ignorant on these points. It is very important we should be told how much of the taxpayers' money is likely to be spent and the lines on which it will be applied to the aid of the drainage authorities.

Mr. GUINNESS: The hon. Member who has just sat down asked how much money we are going to spend on drainage. The programme laid down is to be spread over five years, and immediately follows the Token Vote by which I trust
we shall be authorised to work our scheme in conjunction with the local authorities and settle the total amount to be spent during the next 12 months. Scotland, as always is the case in these matters, gets a separate grant. The hon. Gentleman can discuss that matter with the Secretary for Scotland. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Swansea (Mr. Buncimari) thought we ought to spend more money on research. We are spending altogether about £300,000 a year on research in various directions under the Ministry of Agriculture.

Mr. SPENCER: That is nothing comparable with the compensation we are paying.

Mr. GUINNESS: It is no good pouring out more money thin the scientific experts think can be usefully spent. The Leishman Committee have been provided with all the funds they have asked for, and in no way deprived of the necessary resources. The hon. Member for the Broxtowe Division (Mr. Spencer) takes a great interest in this matter, I know, and has asked various questions as to the control of the disease and as to straw in trucks. Railway companies do not like the use of straw, because of the danger of fire, and I believe it is never used for cattle, and used only to a small extent for pigs. But in all those cases it becomes manure, and has to be destroyed or disinfected under our regulations.

Mr. SPENCER: I mean the straw that is taken out of the trucks. When a truck goes to a colliery the man who cleans it out takes the straw home, or sells it on the road, sometimes, to a smallholder.

Mr. GUINNESS: If the straw has been used as bedding in a truck it has to be disinfected or destroyed.

Mr. SPENCER: It is not.

Mr. GUINNESS: If the hon. Member can tell me of any cases where there has been slackness in this respect. I shall be very glad to look into them; but there is no doubt that is the rule in force. He asked about Irish cattle. There have been repeated assertions that infection was brought in from Ireland. In all cases we have done our best to trace back the infection to its source, and in no instance has any shred of evidence in favour of the existence of foot-and-mouth disease on the other side of the Irish Channel been substantiated.
The hon. Member suggested that if animals are half-starved after their journey from Ireland, they will probably contract the disease. Well, all the scientific experts are agreed that the disease does not start on its own; it is always spread from existing virus. Of course, it may be that an animal in a low state of health will be a more easy prey to infection, but, under our Regulations, I do not think the hon. Member need feel anxiety as to the state of these Irish store cattle, because they have to be rested 10 hours at the port, and we have inspectors whose duty it is to see that they are fed before they undertake their railway journey.
He asked whether we considered slaughter to be effective in arresting the disease. I should have thought the figures I gave earlier this afternoon were absolutely conclusive on that point. The slaughter policy has not prevented infection; indeed, we could not expect that it could do so. Admittedly, we have not found out how infection from the Continent or from the Argentine always reaches us, but we are able to claim that, where the disease breaks out, these stringent Regulations as to immediate destruction of all contact animals have kept the disease under control and prevented it spreading. We are trying to find out how the disease is carried into this country. Undoubtedly, it is brought in in some way not yet established, but we do know from experience that when it is here we are, by our Regulations, able to check it from spreading through the virus of contact animals being carried by human or mechanical carriers to other districts. The hon. Gentleman suggested that it would be cheaper for us to pay people to save their cattle rather than to slaughter them. If we were going to pay 25 per cent. of the value of every animal that survived the outbreak, and an outbreak got completely out of hand, as it does abroad, then my mental arithmetic is not capable of calculating what we might have to spend.

Mr. MAXTON: The Prime Minister will do it. He is good at mental arithmetic.

Mr. GUINNESS: Twenty-five per cent. was what was suggested, and that would run into many millions of pounds in view of the estimated value of the cattle in this country. If we were to allow the
disease to go "rip" all over the country we should spend an absolutely staggering sum.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: That is what we are always telling you about the slums, but you will not believe us.

Mr. GUINNESS: The hon. Member was dissatisfied with the tests which had been made of Dr. Shaw's preventive.

Mr. SPENCER: I did not suggest that I was not satisfied. I said it had been reported that he had not had fair play. I do not say whether that is true or not, but I ask whether it is so or not.

Mr. GUINNESS: There is another hon. Member interested in this matter, but I do not see him present now. I understand that Dr. Shaw is not satisfied, but I would remind the hon. Member that it is not a usual practice to test all these alleged remedies, and an exception was made in this case on the recommendation of the Pretyman Committee, because in the disastrous outbreak of a couple of years ago many farmers believed in this alleged preventive, and it was the view of the Pretyman Committee that unless we were able to decide, one way or the other, whether there was anything in the claim, there was a danger that infection would be spread by farmers trying to cure their own cattle and concealing the disease.
That was the reason for making an exception in this case. We have achieved the object of that test. I need not go through all the details, in fact, I really do not know them, as to why Dr. Shaw was not present when the test was made; but I understand that steps were taken to obtain his assistance in the test, though for various reasons he was not himself present. Anyhow, the test was made after, in the opinion of my advisers, adequate and fair facilities had been given to him to assist them. The test was made under the observation and control of Mr. German, who is a great authority on this matter, and is the trusted chairman of the Livestock Committee of the National Farmers' Union. He has devoted an immense amount of time and experience to trying to deal with this problem. The local farmers were represented by someone else, and a local veterinary representative was appointed. Those three men were absolutely satisfied that the test was fairly made, and that it did not attain the results which were claimed.
That being so, and the farmers for whom the test was made being satisfied that it is not a preventive, there is no case for reopening the matter. It is not the only preventive which has been put forward. I believe the Ministry and the Leishman Committee have had about 1,500 alleged preventives and cures brought to their notice, and obviously it would be very dangerous to undertake to test all these preventives, because we should have to keep alive animals in a violently infectious state who would be pouring out the virus.

Mr. SPENCER: I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say a minute or two ago that we were already spending £300,000 on research. If he does not keep animals for the purpose of testing these specifics, how can he say the Government are making the research we ought to make?

Mr. GUINNESS: I am glad the hon. Member raised that point, because evidently I cannot have expressed myself clearly. I was answering a point made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Swansea, who was talking about sugar beet, and said that we ought to spend money on research, not, however, merely on foot-and-mouth disease. The amount we are spending on foot-and-mouth disease is very much less than the amount named. We are not spending £300,000 on one object, but we are spending all that Sir William Leishman considers necessary.
The only other point is with reference to the sugar beet industry. The hon. Member for Hillsborough (Mr. A. V. Alexander) asked me whether I thought the sugar beet industry was going to be an economic success when the subsidy was withdrawn. Most certainly I hope so. I do not want to make a prophecy, but the authors of this policy, including the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Northern Norfolk (Mr. Buxton), who is sitting near my hon. Friend, no doubt were convinced that there was a good prospect of the industry becoming self-supporting, and I see no reason for changing that view. It is true that in the Report which was recently published certain figures were given which were not as encouraging as the figures which we now get from many farmers as the result of their experience with the crop which has just gone into the factories;
but that Report was admittedly based on a necessarily small degree of experience.

Mr. BUCHANAN: What Report?

Mr. GUINNESS: It is Research Mono-graph No. 3, and is published by the Ministry of Agriculture.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Can we get it in the Vote Office?

Mr. GUINNESS: The hon. Member can get it from the Ministry of Agriculture. That inquiry dealt with a comparatively small number of producers, and not with the results of this season, but the 1924 season. I believe the report has been very valuable in giving information as to the scientific methods which should be adopted in improving the methods of cultivation. The hon. Member is probably aware that though we get a good sugar content in our beets, foreign cultivation has produced a larger yield to the acre. It may well be that with more experience of the growth of beet upon our soil and in our climate, much of the gap which the hon. Member thinks exists between the production of sugar beet on its present basis and on an economic level will be filled up. The hon. Member for Hillsborough seemed in doubt as to which attitude to take up, and he developed certain inconsistency between the beginning and the end of his speech. At one period of his remarks he said that this industry ought to be in private hands, and at another part of his speech he said it was wicked that all this huge profit was being diverted into private hands. The hon. Member said it was wrong that this industry should not be in the hands of the State, and later on he began prophesying failure, saying the industry could not stand on its own feet and would fail after the subsidies stopped.

Mr. ALEXANDER: My point is, that people who reckon they will get their capital outlay back in the subsidy period will not be so much worried about whether the industry pays afterwards, and you will have induced farmers to put the beet down in the meantime.

Mr. GUINNESS: I was not aware that these factories expect to get the whole of their outlay back in the subsidy period. The hon. Member said that it was very unsatisfactory that we should have this system because it is bolstering up taxation on food, and if you did not have this
interest in keeping a tax on sugar you mould probably find that article of food would be admitted free. May I point out that the Government are entirely free to reduce the sugar tax right down to the stabilised preference, which is a very small figure. Really the answer to most of what has been said about the beet-sugar industry is that we are under statutory obligation to pay this money. We have contracted by an Act of Parliament with the factories that are being built, and with the farmers that these subsidies should be paid on this scale for the next nine years.
I entirely disagree with the argument that the farmer would have any grievance if these factories failed because the only people who would lose would be those who put the factories up. Of course, the farmers would lose a very lucrative form of agriculture if we are right in our forecast of this industry, but they would not lose any money and would merely lose an opportunity of making a profit. With regard and to what has been said about tubercular cows, that is outside my control, and perhaps the hon. Member who raised the point will take it up with the Minister of Health. As regards compensation for slaughtered animals, I will look into that matter. Already we pay our proportion of whatever local authorities pay, and I gave the averages which we expect the local authorities would be paid. We have now had a fairly long discussion of this Estimate, and a great deal of debate, and I hope in view of that we may now be allowed to pass the vote.

Mr. THURTLE: On a point of Order, Mr. Chairman, I wish to remind you that you recently ruled that directors of sugar-beet companies were entitled to participate in discussions on the sugar-beet subsidy and to vote upon that subsidy. I submit to you with great respect that the authority you cited in support of your ruling—Erskine May, page 374—refers to Private Bill legislation and not to legislation connected with public policy. May I direct your attention to page 370 of Erskine May, where it says:—
The Votes of three members were disallowed in the Session 1892 in favour of a Grant-in-Aid of a preliminary survey for a railway from the coast to Lake Victoria Nyanza, which had been undertaken on behalf of the Government by the British East Africa Company, of which two of the members in question were directors and
shareholders, and a third was a share holder.
I submit that where it is proved that there is a direct pecuniary interest, as in this case, it is improper for those hon. Members either to take part in the discussion or to vote.

The CHAIRMAN: I gave no ruling whatever about voting. If there is a primâ facie case where an hon. Member has voted that he has a pecuniary interest in the issue, a Motion to cancel his vote may be accepted by the Chair. That he has an interest as director or shareholder does not however prevent him from speaking.

Mr. RILEY: Up to the present no statement has been made by the Minister of Agriculture explaining the £10 estimate which has been put down under Item JJ with regard to drainage. We now learn that what many of us surmise that this innocent figure of £10 means, that we are going to be committed to-day to authorising the Government to hand over £1,000,000 during the next five years to the support of a tottering agricultural landlordism. That is what this £10 Vote means. In the White Paper that is made clear, and we have also had it from the Minister that that is the intention of the Government. If hon. Members will refer to the White Paper they will see that the Government's programme is to devote £1,000,000 for the next five years to land drainage schemes, and that is to be the general taxpayers' contribution to the support of a particular property interest in this country.
As representing an industrial constituency not out of sympathy with the agricultural interest, I may say that would not object to the expenditure of £5,000,000 upon the development of the resources of this country if the nation was going to have the asset created by that expenditure. What we object to is that the whole citizens of the country are going to be taxed for the next five years in order to provide £1,000,000 not for the benefit of the whole people, but simply to enhance the value of the property of some people who own land. The Minister of Agriculture, in replying to the criticisms of the Minister of Agriculture under the Labour Government twitted the Labour party with having carried on this policy of giving grants to these various authorities for land drainage purposes.
The Labour Government was in office for 10 months, and it had schemes before it of this kind to which previous Governments had committed them. Therefore it is quite true to say that the Labour Government continued that policy with new schemes, but it only went on for 10 months. The Minister of Agriculture however ought to have stated that it was his own friends and colleagues who had laid down the conditions of the scheme.
I gathered from a question which I put to the Minister of Agriculture last May that from 1921 to 1923 the Government of that period spent no less than £1,100,000 upon land drainage schemes, and of that sum the Government contributed £681,000 and £337,000 only was contributed by the owners of land. Therefore the Minister of Agriculture has very little ground for twitting the Labour Government for being responsible for this policy which was initiated by its predecessors. We have been told that the basis of the scheme is going to be altered. We have also been told that the Government are going to economise to such an extent that the nation will only De committed to 33 per cent. of the cost, although in certain cases it might be 50 per cent. Under the scheme obtaining in 1919, £620,000 was provided by the nation to improve the agricultural land belonging to the landlords, and under that scheme 75 per cent. of the entire cost was defrayed by the Government and only 25 per cent. by the landlord.
8.0. P.M.
That is a most inequitable system for the taxpayers, and the Government have no right to call upon the general taxpayers to find money simply to benefit a tottering landlordism in this country. If this is a sound policy, why do not hon. Members opposite, interested in commerce and representing manufacturing industries, ask the Government to support this industry under the trade facilities scheme? One of the reasons advanced for this subsidy is that it will find employment. Very well, you have the Trade Facilities Act, which exists to assist manufacturers and industrialists to provide employment, and guarantees are given for the extension of machinery, and so on. Of course, the Government do not find the money, and they only guarantee the interest, and why should the State have to contribute
£1,000,000 as a capital sum in five years to increase the value of the landlords interests? I want to draw the attention of the Committee for a moment to a rather significant Section of the Land Drainage Act, 1919. In Section 16 of that Act there occur the words:
That the expenses of execution and maintaining such drainage works shall not exceed the increase in the value of the land arising therefrom.
That means to say that the amount to be expended upon any drainage scheme shall not exceed the value which will be given to the land by the expenditure upon it. That is a clear admission that the value of the land is increased by the expenditure of the money. I have only one final comment to make. Not only is this method of subsidising owners of land by defraying the cost of drainage, which raises the value of the land, inequitable to the general taxpayer but I want to submit to the Government that it is a flat contradiction of the policy set forth in their own White Paper. I find in the White Paper these words:
The Government have considered various proposals which have been submitted to them involving subsidies either direct or indirect, but they have come to the definite conclusion they cannot support or advocate any of these proposals.
Here is a declaration that the Government's agricultural policy is not a subsidy and yet we have before the Committee this proposal, which the Minister admits involves a million pounds subsidy. I submit to the Committee that, both on the grounds of equity and of policy, that is not right.

Mr. MAXTON: As the right hon. Gentleman, the Minister, rightly, as I think, said, there has been a considerable departure from the issue at stake in this particular Estimate which is a request that this House shall vote £303,000 more than the Ministry asked for at the beginning of the year under this particular head. I want to devote myself entirely to the 250,000 extra that is asked for the sugar beet subsidy. I am not one of the opponents of the sugar beet subsidy. I think it is a most interesting experiment, both from the agricultural point of view and from the point of view of a method of starting any new industry which has not been formerly in operation in this country. It is because I have been watching it with
very great interest as an experiment that I am anxious that the success or failure of that experiment should be due to its intrinsic merits and not to the fact that the matter is being badly or unfairly handled by the experimenters.
I have had placed in my hands, a few moments ago, a research monograph, published by the Ministry, on sugar beet, drawn up by Mr. A. Bridges and Mr. R. N. Dixey of the Agricultural Research Institute of the University of Oxford. I could have wished that it had been placed in the Vote Office as a Parliamentary Paper and I think the Minister might make arrangements for it to be placed there so that all Members of the House could have an opportunity of studying it without having to go to the very great trouble involved in getting it from the Stationery Office. I hope in view of the paragraph in the King's Speech dealing with agriculture the right hon. Gentleman will endeavour to issue this and the other monographs in the same series, as Parliamentary Papers. I have only had an opportunity of glancing through it hastily and one or two of the points I want to raise are dealt with here. As far as I can judge, they deal with the purely agricultural side of the industry and the part dealing with manufacture is a very small one. I certainly know that the persons who prepared it are agricultural experts and not commercial experts.
I could have wished that the Minister in his introductory statement had told us why such a very big additional amount was required and what the Department originally estimated for. To come and ask for an increase of a quarter of a million pounds on an original Estimate of one million pounds is very, very wide estimating at the beginning of the year. I know that the right hon. Gentleman was not responsible for the original Estimate, but I should have thought he would have told us something about the additional acreage that has come under sugar beet, the additional output of the factories, something about the new companies which have been promoted, and the numbers of men that are now employed on the agricultural side and on the manufacturing side of sugar-beet production. The last figures I got—and I have been following this with interest
all through the years since the Act went through—was that this industry employed 1,537 in winter and 393 in summer. That is the total number of men who are employed. That means an average of something like 700 for the whole year. If this was introduced—and it was one, at least, of the reasons given for it—as an unemployment aid, if this expenditure for an amount of £1,250,000 only employs an average of 700 men or 1,500 men at the maximum height of the winter season, it is pretty heavy unemployment expenditure. It amounts to paying these men a thousand a year each, roughly, for doing nothing, and that is somewhat better than is being given to men who are unemployed with a wife and family. It is just a little bit higher.
I want to know how much capital is now invested in this industry and how much of it is home capital and how much of it is foreign capital. The last time I had figures on this subject the totals showed that there were 10 sugar factories either in operation or in course of construction, and the nominal capital was £2,800,000, but the issued capital was only £1,800,000, and of this £825,000 was not owned by persons of British nationality. Thus almost half of the total issued capital was owned by persons not of British nationality. That means to say that nearly half of the British taxpayers' subsidy is going to go at the end of the year into pockets of persons other than British nationality. It means—I know the "Buy-British-Goods" enthusiasts think that this is only a joke—that if you pay £1,250,000 on a subsidy and half goes into foreign countries it is not going to be used in buying British goods, be perfectly certain of that.
I should also have liked to know whether all the companies that are setting up factories under this sugar-beet subsidy are like the Anglo-Scottish Company and the West Midland Company. There is the Anglo-Scottish Company, of which Lord Weir and Lord Invernairn are leading directors. They are also leading directors of the West Midland Company—Lord Weir, Lord Invernairn and Sir John Baird, who is now Lord Stonehaven and who used to occupy an honourable place on the Front Bench, but who has now gone to be Governor-General in Australia. These three Noble Lords are interested in these sugar-beet companies.
It is interesting how some of these people get into all the various industries where there is some Government subsidy going. They are famous propagandists of private enterprise, but they never launch out on any enterprise unless the Government is standing behind them.
The point I want to put which is germane to this proposal is this, that there must have been, I am sure, several more companies in addition to the 10 I know of, floated in the last few months. Are these not only getting the very handsome Government support we give in the form of a subsidy under the Sugar Beet Act or are they, like the Anglo-Scottish and West Midland Companies, each in addition to having this guarantee, having the principal and interest invested in the company guaranteed under the Trade Facilities Act? The Anglo-Scottish Company has a guarantee, under the Trade Facilities Act, of its principal and interest up to £370,000. The West Midland Company also has principal and interest guaranteed to an extent of £150,000. Here we have this company, which is dominated by Lord Weir, getting a big share of the sugar beet subsidy and its principal and interest guaranteed under the Trade Facilities Act.

Then he comes along and under a different operation of this House gets a guarantee of £200,000 for the building of houses. I regret that the partnership of Lord Weir and Lord Invernairn who seem to hang so close together in sugar have now got set apart in the housebuilding industry so that they will not be able to put the whole of the profits out of the houses into the same pocket, but they are both there, although in different groups.

On all these matters I think the right hon. Gentleman ought to have given some general explanation because I have grave suspicions as whether this very great experiment in sugar beet growing and beet sugar manufacture is being done under the best possible conditions—conditions which we are likely to make it successful. If I have very great suspicions I have no doubt other Members will at least have some little doubts on the subject.

Mr. GUINNESS: rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 269; Noes, 125.

Division No. 22.]
AYES.
[8.14 p.m.


Acland, Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Caine, Gordon Hall
Fairfax, Captain J. G.


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Campbell, E. T.
Falle, Sir Bertram G.


Albery, Irving James
Cassels, J. D.
Fermoy, Lord


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Fielden, E. B.


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Centr'l)
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Forestier-Walker, Sir L.


Apsley, Lord
Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Forrest, W.


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Fraser, Captain Ian


Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.
Chapman, Sir S.
Frece, Sir Walter de


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.


Atholl, Duchess of
Christie, J. A.
Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
Galbraith, J. F. W.


Balniel, Lord
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Ganzoni, Sir John


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Gates, Percy


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.
Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton


Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-
Cohen, Major J. Brunel
Gee, Captain R.


Berry, Sir George
Conway, Sir W. Martin
Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham


Bethell, A.
Cope, Major William
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John


Betterton, Henry B.
Couper, J. B.
Goff, Sir Park


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Craig, Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
Greene, W. P. Crawford


Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Grotrian, H. Brent


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.


Blundell, F. N.
Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbrol
Gunston, Captain D. W.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Cunliffe, Sir Herbert
Hanbury, C.


Brassey, Sir Leonard
Curzon, Captain Viscount
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry


Briggs, J. Harold
Dalziel, Sir Davison
Harland, A.


Briscoe, Richard George
Davidson, J. (Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)
Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)


Brittain, Sir Harry
Davies, Dr. Vernon
Harrison, G. J. C.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Hartington, Marquess of


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Dawson, Sir Philip
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Dean, Arthur Wellesley
Haslam, Henry C.


Brown, Brig,-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newby)
Eden, Captain Anthony
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd. Henley)


Bullock, Captain M.
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)


Burman, J. B.
Fiveden, Viscount
Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.


Burton, Colonel H. W.
England, Colonel A.
Henn, Sir Sydney H.


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Everard, W. Lindsay
Herbert, S. (York, N. R., Scar. & Wh'by)


Hills, Major John Walter
Meyer, Sir Frank
Slangy, Major P. Kenyon


Hilton, Cecil
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Smithers, Waldron


Holland, Sir Arthur
Moore, Sir Newton J.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Holt, Captain H. P.
Moore Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (W ill'sden, E.)


Homan, C. W. J.
Moreing, Captain A. H.
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Murchison, C. K.
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Hopkins, J. W. W.
Nelson, Sir Frank
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Howard, Captain Hon. Donald
Neville, R. J.
Streatfeild, Captain S. R.


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Hume, Sir G. H.
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld.)
Tasker, Major R. Inigo


Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis
Nuttall, Ellis
Templeton, W. P.


Hurd, Percy A.
Oakley, T.
Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)


Iliffe, Sir Edward M.
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen South)


Jackson, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. F. S.
Penny, Frederick George
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell.


Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Tinne, J. A.


Jephcott, A. R.
Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)
Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Kindersley, Major G. M.
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frame)
Waddington, R.


King, Captain Henry Douglas
Phillpson, Mabel
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Pielou, D. P.
Ward, Lt. Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)


Knox, Sir Alfred
Preston, William
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Lamb, J. Q.
Price, Major C. W. M.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Radford, E. A.
Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)


Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)
Raine, W.
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Ramsden, E.
Watts, Dr. T.


Little, Dr. E. Graham
Rawson, Sir Alfred Cooper
Wells, S. R.


Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Rees, Sir Beddoe
White, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dalrymple


Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th)
Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Loder, J. de V.
Remnant, Sir James
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Looker, Herbert William
Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Lord, Walter Greaves-
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Lougher, L.
Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stretford)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Ropner, Major L.
Wise, Sir Fredric


MacAndrew, Charles Glen
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Withers, John James


Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Rye, F. G.
Wolmer, Viscount


Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Salmon, Major I.
Womersley, W. J.


McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)


MacIntyre, Ian
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'ge & Hyde)


McLean, Major A.
Sandeman, A. Stewart
Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)


McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John
Sanders, Sir Robert A.
Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)


Macquisten, F. A.
Sandon, Lord
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


MacRobert, Alexander M.
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-
Savery, S. S.
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Malone, Major P. B.
Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W. R., Sowerby)



Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Margesson, Captain D.
Shepperson, E. W.
Major Sir Harry Barnston and


Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)
Captain Bowyer.


Merriman, F. B.
Skelton, A. N.



NOES


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Fenby, T. D.
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Kenyon, Barnet


Baker Walter
Gillett, George M.
Kirkwood, D.


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Gosling, Harry
Lee, F.


Barnes, A.
Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Lindley, F. W.


Barr, J.
Greenall, T.
Livingstone, A. M.


Batey, Joseph
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Calne)
Lunn, William


Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)


Broad, F. A.
Groves, T.
MacNeill-Weir, L.


Bromfield, William
Grundy, T. W.
March, S.


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Nortnanton)
Maxton James


Buchanan, G.
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Montague, Frederick


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Morris, R. H.


Cape, Thomas
Harris, Percy A.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)


Charleton, H. C.
Heyday, Arthur
Naylor, T. E.


Clowes, S.
Hayes, John Henry
Oliver, George Harold


Cluse, W. S.
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Owen, Major G.


Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Hirst, G. H.
Palin, John Henry


Compton, Joseph
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Paling, W.


Connolly, M.
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Potts, John S.


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Purcell, A. A.


Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Riley, Ben


Day, Colonel Harry
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Ritson, J.


Dennison, R.
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)


Duncan, C.
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Kelly, W. T.
Scrymgeour, E.




Scurr, John
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)
Westwood, J.


Sexton, James
Sutton, J. E.
Whiteley, W.


Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
Taylor, R. A.
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro. W.)
Williams, David (Swansea, E.)


Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John
Thurtle, E.
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)
Tinker, John Joseph
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)
Townend, A. E.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Smith, Rennie (Penistone)
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Snell, Harry
Varley, Frank B.
Windsor, Walter


Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Viant, S. P.
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)
Wallhead, Richard C.



Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charles
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Stamford, T. W.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)
Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr.


Stephen, Campbell
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney
Warne.

Question put accordingly, "That a sum, not exceeding £302,900 be granted for the said Service."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 115; Noes, 269.

Division No. 23.]
AYES.
[8.25 p.m.


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Hayes, John Henry
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Attlee, Clement Richard
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Baker, Walter
Hirst, G. H.
Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Barnes, A.
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Snell, Harry


Barr, J.
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Batey, Joseph
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)


Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charles


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Stamford, T. W.


Broad, F. A.
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Stephen, Campbell


Bromfield, William
Kelly, W. T.
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Kirkwood, D. Lee, F.
Sutton, J. E.


Buchanan, G.
Lee, F.
Taylor, R. A.


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Lindley, F. W.
Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro, W.)


Cape, Thomas
Livingstone, A. M.
Thurtle, E.


Charleton, H. C.
Lunn, William
Tinker, John Joseph


Clowes, S.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)
Townend, A. E.


Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Compton, Joseph
MacNeill-Weir, L.
Varley, Frank B.


Connolly, M.
March, S.
Viant, S. P.


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Maxton, James
Wellhead, Richard C.


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Montague, Frederick
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Warne, G. H.


Day, Colonel Harry
Naylor, T. E.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Dennison, R.
Oliver, George Harold
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Duncan, C.
Palin, John Henry
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Paling, W.
Whiteley, W.


Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Gillett, George M.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Gosling, Harry
Potts, John S.
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Greenall, T.
Purcell, A. A.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Riley, Ben
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Ritson, J.
Windsor, Walter


Groves, T.
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Grundy, T. W.
Salter, Dr. Alfred



Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Scrymgeour, E.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Scurr, John
Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy and


Harris, Percy A.
Sexton, James
Mr. Fenby.


Heyday, Arthur
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)



NOES


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Brittain, Sir Harry


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Han. Sir James T.
Barnston, Major Sir Harry
Brocklebank C. E. R.


Albery, Irving James
Berry, Sir George
Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Bethell, A.
Broun, Lindsay, Major H.


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Betterton, Henry B.
Brown, Maj. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)


Apsley, Lord
Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Bullock, Captain M.


Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.
Blades, Sir George Rowland
Burman, J. B.


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Blundell, F. N.
Burton, Colonel H. W.


Atholl, Duchess of
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Butler, Sir Geoffrey


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Brassey, Sir Leonard
Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward


Balniel, Lord
Briggs, J. Harold
Caine, Gordon Hall


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Briscoe, Richard George
Campbell, E. T.


Cassels, J. D.
Holland, Sir Arthur
Raine, W.


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Holt, Captain H. P.
Ramsden, E.


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Homan, C. W. J.
Rawson, Sir Alfred Cooper


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Rees, Sir Beddoe


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Reid, Captain A. S. C. (Warrington)


Chapman, Sir S.
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Remnant, Sir James


Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Howard, Captain Hon. Donald
Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)


Christie, J. A.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)


Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
Hume, Sir G. H.
Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stretford)


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis
Ropner, Major L.


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Hurd, Percy A.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Cookerill, Brigadier-General G. K.
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Rye, F. G.


Cohen, Major J. Brunel
Iliffe, Sir Edward M.
Salmon, Major I.


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Cope, Major William
Jackson, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. F. S.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Couper, J. B.
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Sandeman, A. Stewart


Craig, Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
Jephcott, A. R.
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Jones, Henry Haydn, (Merioneth)
Sandon, Lord


Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Kindersley, Major Guy M.
Savery, S. S.


Cunliffe, Sir Herbert
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W. R., Sowerby)


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)


Dalziel, Sir Davison
Knox, Sir Alfred
Shepperson, E. W.


Davidson, J. (Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)
Lamb, J. Q.
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset., Yeovil)
Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)
Skelton, A. N.


Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)
Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon


Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
Little, Dr. E. Graham
Smith, R. W. (Abercrn & Kinc'dine, C.)


Davison, Sir Philip
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Dean, Arthur Wellesley
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th)
Smithers, Waldron


Eden, Captain Anthony
Loder, J. de V.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Looker, Herbert William
Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.)


Eiveden, Viscount
Lord, Walter Greaves-
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


England, Colonel A.
Lougher, L.
Stanley, Hon. D. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Everard, W. Lindsay
MacAndrew, Charles Glen
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Streatfeild, Captain S. R.


Follo, Sir Bertram G.
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Fermoy, Lord
McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Fielden, E. B.
MacIntyre, Ian
Tasker, Major R. Inigo


Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
McLean, Major A.
Templeton, W. P.


Forrest, W.
McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John
Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)


Fraser, Captain Ian
Macquisten, F. A.
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Frece, Sir Walter de
MacRobert, Alexander M.
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, S.)


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-


Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Malone, Major P. B.
Tinne, J. A.


Gainraith, J. F. W.
Manningham, Buller, Sir Mervyn
Tryon, At. Hon. George Clement


Garzoni, Sir John
Margesson, Capt. D.
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Gates, Percy
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Waddington, R.


Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton
Merriman, F. B.
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Gee, Captain R.
Meyer, Sir Frank
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)


Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Goff, Sir Park
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Watson, Sir F. (Padsey and Otley)


Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Moore, Sir Newton J.
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Greene, W. P. Crawford
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Watts, Dr. T.


Grotrian, H. Brent
Moreing, Captain A. H.
Wells, S. R.


Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Morris, R. H.
White, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dalrymple


Gunston, Captain D. W.
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive.
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Murchison, C. K.
Williams, Com. C. (Devon. Torquay)


Hanbury, C.
Nelson, Sir Frank
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Neville, R. J.
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Harland, A.
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld.)
Windsor, Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)
Nuttall, Ellis
Wise, Sir Fredric


Harrison, G. J. C.
Oakley, T.
Withers, John James


Hartington, Marquess of
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)
Wolmer, Viscount


Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh
Womerstey, W. J.


Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Owen, Major G.
Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)


Haslam, Henry C.
Penny, Frederick George
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde)


Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxi'd, Henley)
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)


Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)
Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)


Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Pato, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Herbert, (York, N. R. Scar. & Wh'by)
Philipson, Mabel
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Hills, Major John Walter
Pielou, D. P.



Hilton, Cecil
Preston William
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Price, Major C. W. M.
Major Hennessy and Captain


Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy
Radford, E. A.
Bowyer.

Mr. GUINNESS: claimed "That the Original Question he now put."

Original Question put accordingly.

The Committee divided: Ayes, 251; Noes, 91.

Division No. 23.]
AYES.
[8.35 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Gates, Percy
Moore, Sir Newton J.


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamillton
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.


Albery, Irving James
Gee, Captain R.
Moreing, Captain A. H.


Alexander, E. E. (Layton)
Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham
Morris, R. H.


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Gilmour, Colonel Rt. Hon. Sir John
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive


Apsley, Lord
Goff, Sir Park
Nelson, Sir Frank


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld.)


Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Nuttall, Ellis


Astor, Maj. Hon. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Grotrian, H. Brent
Oakley, T.


Atholl, Duchess of
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Owen, Major G.


Balniel, Lord
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Penny, Frederick George


Barclay, Harvey C. M.
Hanbury, C.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Perkins, Colonel E. K.


Barnston, Major Sir Harry
Harland, A.
Phillpson, Mabel


Berry, Sir George
Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)
Pielou, D. P.


Betterton, Henry B.
Harrison, G. J. C.
Preston, William


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Hartington, Marquess of
Price, Major C. W. M.


Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Radford, E. A.


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Raine, W.


Blundell, F. N.
Haslam, Henry C.
Ramsden, E.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Rawson, Sir Alfred Cooper


Brassey, Sir Leonard
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)
Rees, Sir Beddoe


Briggs, J. Harold
Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.
Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)


Briscoe, Richard George
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Remnant, Sir James


Brittain, Sir Harry
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Herbert, S. (York, N. R., Scar. & Wh'by)
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Hills, Major John Walter
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Braun-Lindsay, Major H.
Hilton, Cecil
Rye, F. G.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, N. wb'y)
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Bullock, Captain M.
Holland, Sir Arthur
Sandeman, A. Stewart


Burman, J. B.
Holt, Captain H. P.
Sandon, Lord


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Homan, C. W. J.
Savery, S. S.


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Sexton, James


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W. R., Sowerby)


Caine, Gordon Hall
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Shaw, Copt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)


Campbell, E. T.
Howard, Captain Hon. Donald
Shepperson, E. W.


Cassels, J. D.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Hume, Sir G. H.
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Hume Williams, Sir W. Ellis
Skelton, A. N.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Hurd, Percy A.
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon


Chapman, Sir S.
Iliffe, Sir Edward M.
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kine'dine, C.)


Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Smith, Carington, Neville W.


Christie, J. A.
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Smithers, Waldron


Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
Jephcolt, A. R.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.)


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.
Kindersley, Major Guy M.
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Cohen, Major J. Brunel
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Cope, Major William
Knox, Sir Alfred
Streatfelid, Captain S. R.


Couper, J. B.
Lamb, J. O.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Craig, Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)
Tasker, Majar R. Inigo


Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Templeton, W. P.


Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Little, Dr. E. Graham
Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)


Cunliffe, Sir Herbert
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Locker-Lampoon, Com. O. (Handsw'th)
Tinker, John Joseph


Dalziel, Sir Davison
Loder, J. de V.
Tinne, J. A.


Davidson, J. (Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)
Looker, Herbert William
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Lord, Walter Greaves-
Waddington, R.


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Laugher, L.
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)
Luce, major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)


Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
MacAndrew, Charles Glen
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Dawson, Sir Philip
Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)


Dean, Arthur Wellesley
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Eden, Captain Anthony
McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus
Wells, S. R.


Edmondson, Major A. J.
MacIntyre, I.
Westwood, J.


England, Colonel A.
McLean, Major A.
White, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dalrymple


Everard, W. Lindsay
McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Macguisten, F. A.
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
MacRobert, Alexander M.
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Fermoy, Lord
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Fielden, E. B.
Malone, Major P. B.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Wise, Sir Fredric


Forrest, W.
Margesson, Captain D.
Withers, John James


Fraser, Captain Ian
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Wolmer, Viscount


Frece, Sir Walter de
Merriman, F. B.
Womersley, W. J.


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)


Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Wood, E. (Chester, Stalyb'dge & Hyde)


Ganzoni, Sir John
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)




Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Woodcock, Colonel H. C.
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)
Mr. F. C. Thomson and Captain


Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

Bowyer.




NOES.


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Hayes, John Henry
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Attlee, Clement Richard
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Smith, H. B. Lees. (Keighley)


Baker, Walter
Hirst, G. H.
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Snell, Harry


Barr, J.
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Batey, Joseph
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)


Beckett, John (Gateshead)
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charles


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Stamford, T. W.


Broad, F. A.
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Stephen, Campbell


Bromfield, William
Kelly, W. T.
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Buchanan, G.
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Sutton, J. E.


Cape, Thomas
Kirkwood, D.
Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro., W.)


Charleton, H. C.
Lee, F.
Townend, A. E.


Clowes, S.
Lindley, F. W.
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Compton, Joseph
Livingstone, A. M.
Varley, Frank B.


Connolly, M.
Lunn, William
Viant, S. P.


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
March, S.
Wallhead, Richard C.


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Maxton, James
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Day, Colonel Harry
Oliver, George Harold
Whiteley, W.


Duncan, C.
Palin, John Henry
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Paling, W.
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Fenby, T. D.
Potts, John S.
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Garry-Jones, Captain G. M.
Purcell, A. A.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Gosling, Harry
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Greenall, T.
Ritson, J.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)
Windsor, Walter


Groves, T.
Salter, Dr, Alfred



Grundy, T. W.
Scrymgeour, E.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Scurr, John
Mr. Neil McLean and Mr.


Harris, Percy A.
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
Thurtle.


Heyday, Arthur
Shiels, Dr. Drummond

It being after a Quarter-past Eight of the Clock, further Proceeding was postponed, without Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 4.

KING'S ROLL.

Sir HERBERT CUNLIFFE: I beg to move,
That, in the opinion of this House, it is Vic duty of the Government in all Government contracts to make provision for the employment to the fullest possible extent of disabled ex-service men, and to this end to confine such contracts, save in exceptional circumstances, to employers enrolled on the King's National Roll.
The question to which I wish to invite the attention of the House for a short time concerns a problem which greatly exercises the hearts and minds of Members of all parties. We disagree upon many things, but, thank Heaven! we agree upon this—that it is our duty, as indeed it is our desire, and, as I believe, it is our determination, to do all that in us lies to ameliorate the lot of those who are disabled in consequence of their service on our behalf in the War. They have an overwhelming claim upon us, a claim which is not founded on charity or pity,
or generosity in a sense, although all those principles may well be applied in the solving of the problem; but their claim is founded upon our gratitude, upon our consciences, upon honour and our sense of justice. It is, however, no use disguising the fact that the problem is a very serious and a very formidable one. It is one to which all wars lead, and the greater the war the greater the problem. It is a problem which has baffled other nations besides ours, and, indeed, has baffled ours in times gone by. Unless we are careful it will baffle us too.
I think, perhaps, this generation believes that it has a keener perception of its duties to those who are disabled by war, a stronger determination to discharge the obligations that may be imposed on it, and enlarged intelligence as to the ways in which the disabled may best be helped. I hope it is so. It would, indeed, be an unsatisfactory reflection if, after all the advances which have been made in civilisation and enlightenment, we had not experienced some quickening of the feelings of humanity, and appreciated more fully the obligations to those who are maimed in our service. The task after the Great War is greater than any that this
country has experienced. But I think we may derive encouragement from the fact that there is a universal feeling among men and women of all parties and all classes to do everything that in them lies and to help in every possible way those who have been maimed. One fundamental idea we are all agreed upon, and that is that we can best promote the happiness and welfare of those who were disabled in the War by helping them to such work as they are capable of doing. Nothing could be worse for the disabled themselves than to encourage them to brood over their disabilities, or to cultivate the idea that by reason of their disabilities they are no longer fit to take part in the life and labour of the community.
The House will remember that in the discussion, almost exactly a year ago, of a cognate subject, a very interesting and very illuminating speech was delivered by the right hon. Member for Preston (Mr. T. Shaw), and with his ideas upon the subject I venture very respectfully to associate myself, and I think that the House will desire to associate itself with them also. Perhaps we may safely say that, as compared with our forefathers, we have one advantage. That is a realisation of the importance, in connection with this problem, of organisation and co-ordinated effort. This is an age of organisation, and this problem calls specially for organisation, because the casual benevolence of warm-hearted persons towards sufferers in the War will not only never solve the problem, but, apart from the fact that it is not right that the victim should be left to this kind of relief, it very often, I fear, does far more harm than good.
It was a realisation of this consideration which led to the establishment, in August, 1919, of the King's Roll. I do not want to suggest that before the inauguration of the King's Roll, either the Ministry or the country was not alive to the importance of trying to find proper occupation for those who had been disabled in the War. Up to that time the Employment Exchanges had, in fact, devoted special attention to finding work for disabled men. But it was the realisation of the fact that the problem was to be an exceedingly serious one, and that it called for organisation and co-ordinated
effort, which led to the establishment of the King's Roll. The essential idea of the King's Roll is that every effort should be made to absorb into employment all disabled ox-service men who are capable of any employment; secondly, to secure as far as possible that there should be an equitable distribution of these men among the several industries.
Employers who come upon the Roll are expected to employ as many disabled men as possible, and not less than an agreed percentage, which is generally 5 per cent. For some time after its inauguration the scheme was administered by the local employment committees, but later on, on the recommendation of a Select Commitee of this House, the King's Roll Council was set up and local King's Roll Committees were established, the council being under the chairmanship of Field-Marshal Earl Haig. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Bootle (Lieut.-Colonel Henderson), who is to follow me, has done yeoman service to this cause as the Honorary, Secretary of the King's Roll National Council, and I hope that he will be able to give the House some particulars of the work of the council and committees.
The success of the scheme has undoubtedly been hindered to some extent by the great depression in trade through which the country unfortunately has gone. Notwithstanding that fact, the number of ex-service men registered as unemployed has undergone a considerable decrease. In October, 1922, there were 65,000 ex-service men registered as unemployed. By November, 1924, that number had fallen to 36,301, and exactly a year ago there was a slight increase to 37,599. Happily by December last year the number had fallen to 32,350, and I am glad to tell the House that in the latest figures available—those for last month—there is a further reduction to 31,291. Although that is a very substantial reduction the number is still a great deal too large.
The employers at present on the Roll number 28,000 and employ 370,000 disabled ex-service men, but there are a good many employers not on the Roll who ought to be on it. Local authorities have helped by coming on the Roll, complying with the conditions, and giving preference in allotting their contracts to firms who are on the Roll, but, there again, one
is convinced that a good many local authorities are not on the Roll as to whom one mast frankly say that they ought to be on it. It is satisfactory to me to be able to say that in the area of which my constituency forms the major part all the local authorities are on the Roll, and all the local authorities give preference in allotting their contracts to firms who are on the Roll. This is a very large and thickly-populated area, and I hope the House will forgive me for taking some pride in the fact that there are only 142 disabled ex-service men in that area who are registered as unemployed. There is the further satisfactory fact that all these disabled ex-service men have been at some time or other since demobilisation employed for various periods. My information is That the men are unemployed at the moment very largely owing to adverse trade conditions, and that as soon as trade improves, it is hoped all will be back in employment. I need not say I sincerely hope it will be so, and in that case it will constitute a very satisfactory record for a very thickly-populated area in which a great deal of self-sacrificing service was given during the War.
9.0 P.M.
I desire to say something about the attitude of successive Governments, because the Resolution which I submit to the House deals with the attitude which the Government ought to adopt in regard to this question. I am bound to say, and I say it very gladly, that ever since the inception of this idea all Governments, regardless of their political views, have been most sympathetic and helpful. It was during the time of the Coalition Government that the King's Roll was inaugurated; and a very definite step was taken in April, 1921, when it was officially announced that the policy of the Government was that, save in very exceptional circumstances all firms tendering for Government contracts to whom the conditions of membership were applicable must be on the Roll. That is a policy which I hope hon. Members will to-night carry a little further by making it the declared policy of the House. It continued to be the policy of successive Governments, that is to say, of Mr. Bonar Law's Government, of the first Government of the present Prime Minister, of the Government of the right hon. Gentleman
the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald) and of the present Government.
Satisfactory and sympathetic declarations upon this question of giving preference in contracts to firms on the King's Roll were made during the term of office of the Labour Government by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas), then Colonial Secretary, by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ince (Mr. S. Walsh) on behalf of the War Office, and by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Preston as Minister of Labour. Still one has to remember that not all—by no means all—of the local authorities are on the Roll, and not all—very far from all—of the individual employers and companies who ought to be on the Roll are on it. So far, there has been no formal Resolution of this House confirming the policy of successive Governments, though I think one might fairly take it that that policy met with the approval of the successive Parliaments, and it is thought at this juncture when we are getting a little further from the War, and its memories are beginning to fade a little, that the time is opportune for this House to put on record in no equivocal terms its view of the matter, so as to strengthen the hands of the Government Departmental which have to deal with these contracts and also to provide an example to local bodies and employers of labour in general. I hope I may be so fortunate as to get the unanimous assent of this House to this Motion. I believe that in passing it we will set a great example to all public authorities and to all employers of labour, and I would appeal to this House to give a unanimous support to the Motion, so that it may go forth to the world that this Resolution expresses the considered opinion, not of the Ministry only, but of the elected representatives of the nation, and that it may be known that this is the settled policy of all parties and of the whole people.

Lieut.-Colonel HENDERSON: I beg to second the Motion.
I very greatly appreciate the opportunity which my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bolton (Sir H. Cunliffe) has afforded me of being able to second this Resolution, because I have been very closely associated with this work, from
an administrative point of view, for more than three years. I have worked now with four successive Ministers of Labour, and I feel that it is only right that the House should get an opportunity from time to time of some discussion on this question. I feel sure they could not have had the case put to them more ably than it has been put to-night by my hon. and learned Friend, who has pointed out that approval of the Resolution is only the approval of a custom which has been in force, so far as the Cabinet and Government Departments are concerned, since 1921. That is perfectly true, but it has never before had the formal sanction and approval either of this House or of another place, on the lines, for instance, of the Fair Wages Resolution, which did receive the formal sanction of this House.
There may be some people, who are rather critical as to the whole working of this system, who may say that this Resolution savours of a form of compulsion, and, to a certain extent, they are probably correct. The House will remember that, when the Select Committee reported in 1922, they definitely said that, if the scheme did not succeed on voluntary lines, it would be necessary to adopt some form of compulsion. I was a member of that Committee, and I confess that at that time I held rather different views on the whole question of compulsion, so far as it applied to a scheme of this kind, from those that I hold at present, because in the work which I have done in the interval I have very considerably modified my opinion, and I have come to the conclusion that it would be very difficult to justify what you might call a full-blooded and full-bodied scheme of compulsion as applied to a problem of this kind. Compulsion, as we know it, means a State compulsion, which demands, in order that it may be carried out, an army of officials, a mass of forms and documents which require to be filled in, and a considerable amount of State interference, and I do not think the size of the problem, as it faced us three years ago and as it faces us now to a much smaller extent, justifies that interference; nor do I think it would assist trade, and, after all, we have to remember that the condition of trade has a very considerable effect on the success or failure of this scheme.
Therefore, so far as that type of compulsion is concerned, I, personally, think it is unjustified and unnecessary, but I do not consider a proposal of this kind, which has been in practice for about five years and which has proved to be of enormous benefit to the whole working of the scheme, could possibly be objected to on the ground that it was a form of compulsion. It is true that it brings a certain amount of pressure to bear on certain employers to carry out their obligations under the National King's Roll Scheme, but it is their duty. It was considered right, when this scheme was started six years ago, that those employers or local authorities who employed a sufficiently large staff to enable them to do so should, as their share of the national burden, undertake to employ a certain number of these men, and if that was the general opinion of this House and of the country, then I do not think that, if some of these people are not fulfilling their obligations, it is a wrong form of compulsion to say that they should not be allowed to get contracts on an unfair basis as compared with other firms who are competing with them and who are fulfilling their obligations., That is, after all, all that the scheme implies.
I know full well, from the working of the scheme, that this question of the restriction of Government contracts plays a very considerable part in keeping the Roll in an efficient state, because it makes large employers feel that, if they are carrying out their obligations, nobody anyhow will be taking an unfair advantage, and when you are carrying a big burden that is a very considerable satisfaction. I regret that there are still a certain number of large employers—not many—and a certain number of large local authorities and of large public utility companies who have not yet fulfilled their obligations under this scheme. There is another form of compulsion which is in a sense coupled with the Resolution which we are asking the House to approve tonight, and that is the power which is inherent in this House itself to refuse to any local authority or any public utility company any special powers which they may seek under a private Bill from this House. The House will remember that last year, in their wisdom, they decided to throw out a particular private Bill for
that reason, because they considered that the company had not fulfilled its obligations under the King's Roll Scheme, and I am glad to say that the action of the House at that time had a very beneficial and far-reaching effect on the whole working of this scheme, because it drew attention to the scheme, it made the public as a whole realise that the House was interested and in earnest with regard to the walking of the scheme, and it perhaps rallied a certain number of rather lukewarm supporters in its cause.
I believe that, so long as I am responsible to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour in a small measure, as I am, for a certain amount of the working of this scheme, it would be only right that, if in the future any local authority or public utility company came to this House for special powers and had definitely refused to accept their obligations under this scheme when they had been asked to do so and were in a position to do so, I should inform the House of that position, in order that the House might judge the position for itself, on its merits; and, subject to his approval, I should certainly propose to do that. I do not think the occasion is likely to arise, but it might, and I think it is only fair that it should be clearly understood before it arises and not afterwards. My hon. and learned Friend has outlined very clearly and very ably the general history of this scheme since it came into operation, and it is not for me to repeat what he has said. But I do want to refer to one or two criticisms which have been made of this scheme, in order that I may try to show the House that those criticisms, to a considerable extent, are unjustified, and in order that I may try to show, that if we get the backing of the House for which we ask, the existing scheme, working on its existing lines, is quite capable of solving the problem, insofar as it remains a problem at the present time.
It has been said, in the first place, that the scheme has really done nothing in the last few years, because whereas in 1922, when the Select Committee reported, there were more than 30,000 firms on the Roll, now there are only a little more than 28,000. That argument has often been used. I frequently still see it in the Press, but it is entirely incorrect. There were never 30,000 effective firms on the Roll at any time.
What actually happened was that a firm which was put on the Roll was allowed to remain on it, in some cases without being asked to send a formal act of renewal. It is the custom, when a firm first enrols, to ask them to enrol for one year, and after that to ask them to renew for periods of two years at a time. A great many of these firms had been on the Roll without being asked to renew their undertaking, and when the National Council came into existence, one of the first things it did was to revise the under taking of the whole of those 30,000 firms, and, as a result, it was found necessary to remove from the Roll, in the first six months of 1923, some 5,000 firms. A good many of those firms have since renewed their undertaking on a different basis, but it is not correct to say there were 30,000 effective firms on the Roll in 1922. There were never anything like that; otherwise it would not have been necessary to remove 5,000 firms in the first six months of 1923. Therefore, we are perfectly justified in saying, that so far as effective firms are concerned, all the Roll is now effective, and no firm is allowed to remain on the Roll which does not renew its undertaking in a reasonable number of months from the time it expires. I think we can say that the number of effective firms on the Roll now is as large as, if not larger than, it has ever been before.
Another point which has been made is that the increase in the number of disabled men employed in the last 12 months, from 350,000 to 370,000, which was the figure my hon. and learned Friend gave, is entirely due to the enrolment of the large railway companies, and does not really represent any increase in the employment of disabled men at all. That statement is also incorrect, because all the large railway companies were on the Roll before 1925, with the exception of the London and North Eastern, Which enrolled in April, 1928, and they employ about 9,000 disabled men, so that, although those 9,000 are perfectly genuinely included in the increase, it is not true to say that the whole 20,000, by which figure the number of employed has increased in the last 12 months, is due to the enrolment of railway companies, because it is not. The other railway companies, in some cases, have been on the Roll for four or five years, and in one case for longer.
There is a third criticism, and that is that the fact that the numbers of disabled men unemployed are steadily decreasing, as my hon. and learned Friend pointed out, is solely due to the fact that the number of pensioners is also decreasing through processes of time. I quite appreciate the fact, that this problem, like the problem which faces the Ministry of Pensions, is one which, in process of time, will naturally disappear, but it is absolutely untrue to say that the King's Roll scheme depends for its success on waiting sufficiently long until there are no more pensioners remaining unemployed.
During the past six months the Ministry of Pensions figures of men in receipt of pensions have, roughly speaking, remained stationary, and yet during that six months the numbers of disabled ex-service men unemployed has been reduced by a figure of between 3,000 and 4,000 men. That, in itself, proves there is not the exact relation between the one figure and the other as some people try to establish. It is also disproved by another fact, and that is that month by month there is a steady number of disabled men re-registered or registered afresh for employment as disabled men. Most hon. Members who are interested in this question know perfectly well that at every Employment Exchange there is a special register kept known as B and C, and that register is continually turning over, like the ordinary Employment Exchange register, and if the disabled men, who are the best judges in the matter, really believed the King's Roll was a farce from beginning to end, they would not take the trouble to register under the special register as disabled men, because, if the thing were a farce, they would know they would only be handicapping themselves by acknowledging the fact that they had disability. The fact that every month we still get anything from about 7,000 to 9,000 re-registers or fresh registers of disabled men at the other end re-absorbed by fresh firms of employers found for them, or found by themselves, proves that the men themselves believe that the scheme is a good scheme, and it is for their benefit, and is working reasonably satisfactorily. I think that is the best proof we could possibly have.
There is another object in this Resolution, and that is that I hope it will induce
more local authorities to follow the example of the Government contracting Departments so far as Government contracts are concerned. It is quite true a good many local authorities are so small, and the value of their contracts is so infinitesimal, that it is really not of very much importance whether they pass a resolution of that kind or not, but, on the other hand, some of the larger local authorities can very genuinely assist the scheme by adopting the Government practice, and there is still a considerable number of the larger ones which have not followed this practice, and have made no attempt to do so. There are about 544 local authorities which either give preference in their contracts or restrict them, and those include a considerable number of larger ones, particularly the ones in London, but there is ample room for improvement, and I hope one of the effects of this Resolution, if passed to-night, will be to stir up some of those larger authorities in that respect. There is also another point, and that is that in another place to-day, a Resolution similar to this has been moved and carried, and, therefore, if this Resolution be approved by this House to-day, it will go out with the joint power of both Houses.
I do not think there is anything else which I need really say to commend this Resolution to the judgment of the House. We all realise that, as time goes on and as the date of the conclusion of the War gets further away, this problem is apt to be forgotten. It is natural that people should forget it. But as long as the problem remains a problem we cannot as a House of Commons in decency or justice forget that it entails an obligation so far as we are concerned, and as long as that obligation exists it is our duty to do our best to put forward any solution which will be of assistance and help in solving it. I am perfectly convinced that if the people of this country realise that we as a Parliament are in earnest, that we have not forgotten these men, and that as long as they remain we will not forget them, then our action in passing a Resolution like this to-night will be of assistance to those men and to ourselves and to the country as a whole. It is because I believe that the House agrees with my hon. and learned Friend in that point of view that I have very much pleasure in seconding the Resolution.

Mr. BARKER: I have very much pleasure in supporting the Resolution. I am sorry that it is not a watertight Resolution. At the end of the Resolution there are the words
save in exceptional circumstances, to employers enrolled on the King's National Roll.
I should have liked this Resolution to have been stronger, and to make it obligatory on every one who has a Government contract to be on the King's Roll. Personally I would rather see the Government responsible for employing disabled ex-service men than place the obligation on any private firm or individual. I am not blind to the fact that the employers of this country very many cases have acted most generously and most nobly towards their disabled employés. Passing my door in the last two or three years there has been a man employed by the Ebbw Vale Colliery Company who is without both arms. The company had a leather bag made for him and employed him in carrying messages from one office to another. I know for a fact that that company employed every ex-service man who was disabled, and I have great pleasure of testifying to that on the Floor of the House.
The position of the ex-service man is very deplorable indeed in the present state of unemployment. An ex-service man with 20, 30 or 40 per cent. disability is outside the labour market altogether when he goes into competition for remunerative employment. The condition of these men is deporable in the extreme. One of the ex-service men wrote to me in the latter part of last week. He had had a gun-shot wound in the fore-arm but he was unable now to find employment. I know from personal experience because I am a member myself of the British Legion and an ex-service man myself that very many of these men are suffering most severely under the present circumstances. A man to-day with a 50 per cent. disability has £1 a week pension. That is entirely inadequate to maintain him, consequently in many cases men have to go to the guardians for relief. It is deplorable in a country like ours that any ex-service man should be dependent upon the parish for his existence, and it is very discreditable to this country.
I support the Resolution because it is the best thing before the House at the
present time. At the same time I do feel that it is an obligation really on the Government, as representing the entire nation, to see that these disabled ex-service men are found employment or found an adequate pension that will take them away from parish relief. I feel certain that this House, at any rate, will not oppose this Motion, and that; it will be passed without the slightest opposition. I hope the Ministry of Pensions and the Ministry of Labour will look on this Motion with the greatest favour possible, and that in the-future they will do the best they can to find these 31,000 men either employment or adequate maintenance.

Mr. PIELOU: It is a very great pleasure to support this Resolution, because I do so in the hope that something real will come out of the discussion. I remember only a year ago to-morrow my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Norwich (Captain Fairfax) moved this Resolution:
That this House desires to leave no avenue unexplored which may lead to a proper and satisfactory solution of the question of employment of disabled ex-service men.
That Resolution was unanimously carried in this House. It is true, I believe, that one Member spoke against it. I want to ask what has really been done to leave no stone unturned during those 12 months? How many Members of this House have gone down into their constituencies and appealed to those firms who are not on the King's Roll to become members of it? It is only by practical support from Members of this House that we shall be able to accomplish what we desire. I might be permitted to say a word of praise in reference to the work that has been accomplished by the King's Roll. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Bootle (Lieut. - Colonel Henderson) seconded this Resolution in the most able manner. He is in a unique position of having all the facts and figures at his finger ends. He, together with the Vice-Chairman the hon. and gallant Member for Fareham (Sir J. Davidson), have undoubtedly done good work in connection with the King's Roll. Those firms who have been patriotic and supported the King's Roll are to be thanked, as well as the local committees throughout the country. But the King's Roll was set up
in 1919, and to-day we are informed that we have over 31,000 disabled men unemployed. I personally am not going to accept that figure. In my opinion it is greater than that, but whether there be 31,000 or 20,000 or 60,000, the fact remains that the work of the King's Roll Grand Council has not accomplished what we would have liked it to have done.
There is no doubt that something like over 20,000 firms in this country are not on the King's Roll to-day. To my mind the only solution of this great problem is a compulsory Measure. Hon. Members who were in this House in 1923–24 will probably remember that I was fortunate enough to draw a place in the ballot for a Private Members' Bill. I introduced what was known as the Compulsory Employment of Disabled Service Men's Bill. It obtained a unanimous Second Reading. Unfortunately, before it had got further we were faced with a General Election, and the Bill died a natural death. It was reintroduced in the following year—that is last year—by the hon. Member for North Islington (Sir H. Cowan), but he, unfortunately, selected a date—not knowing at the time that the Government were going to give us an extra week's holiday—which included that date—with the result that, again, the Bill was never reached. In this Session we who are interested in this question have not been successful in the ballot, and others who might have re-introduced the Bill had, perhaps, other interests or other Bills, with the result that there is no compulsory Measure now before us.
Therefore, I am glad to support this Resolution. It is a step in the right direction. I do want to see something accomplished as a result of our discussion this evening. As I said before, it is no good passing pious resolutions and nothing more being accomplished. What we want to see is these men actually placed in work. It is a stain upon the fair name of this country that we have such a large number of disabled ex-service men unemployed in our midst. I would like to see this Resolution even go a little further. There are men who have sub-contracts for Government work. I hope the Minister will see that those who fix or let out the sub-contracts see to it that they are let to firms on the King's Roll. In regard to the public utility
companies, corporations, and local authorities, if we could get them to adopt the same Measure that I hope the Government is going to adopt this evening, and insist that the goods they require shall be made by firms on the King's Roll whenever possible, that would help us considerably is absorbing a large number of disabled unemployed.
Every disabled man has a drawback. It does not matter what pension he is receiving. It cannot make up for the loss he has sustained. But when it comes to try to obtain a position, he suffers as a result of that disability. I remember quite well, after my discharge from the Army, that I was anxious to do what little I could for the interest of my country, and I offered my services to one of the Government Departments. I was accepted. After I had been there some time I was anxious to obtain another position not one that would benefit me financially but one in which I should probably he more interested. I was turned down by a, little whipper-snapper he had no military service, and who, no doubt had got into the "funk holes" of Whitehall to escape it. I was turned down, not because I lacked ability but because of my disability. The same thing applies to many men who are to-day seeking employment, and hide, or try to hide, their disability, or wear their discharge badges, at the back because they know that if they tell the prospective employer of labour that they are disabled ex-service men that their chance is not so great of getting that job as it would be if they were not disabled.
There must be over 20,000 firms that are not on the King's Roll. There are many ways in which a badly disabled ex-service man may be utilised. As one goes along and keeps ones eyes open, you see in the great concerns and establishments, that the jobs of lift-men and commissionaires are very often done by people who are not ex-service men, who, even if they have lost an eye or an arm, can quite easily do the work. It should be the duty of the King's Roll Grand Council to impress more than it has done the need for these firms realising their responsibilities to those who suffered for the country. The policy of the party to which I belong is one of "Peace in our time." The object, I believe of our leader is to make this country a better place to live in than now. I do not
believe that we shall be able to accomplish these things until we have repaid the debt we owe to those men who have been broken as the result of their sacrifices for their country in the Great War. I support this Resolution. I hope that some good result will come from it, and that before we again have this hardy annual in the House of Commons we shall see to it that these figures are considerably reduced, and that the majority of these disabled men who are employable have been employed.

Mr. PALIN: We all appreciate the very kindly speeches which have been made by hon. Members on the opposite side who have spoken to this Resolution. I am afraid, however, that the Resolution, if carried, is likely to be a pious hope. I feel that, generally speaking, Government contractors and public authorities have already done all that it is possible for them to do in this direction. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] Well, we shall have to leave that a moot point. There may be some who have not signed the Roll—railway companies have been mentioned—but I do not know of a single railway company which has not only taken back its own employés who returned disabled and found them jobs suitable to their capacity, but has not also taken others who had no; previously served with it, and found them employment, although the company may not have signed the Roll. In most industries I have found that employers of labour have been prepared to take back their own employés who were disabled, but what they have not been prepared to do is to find, or to make, situations for those who had not previously worked for them, and that is necessary if all the ex-service men capable of performing any kind of labour are to be ultimately absorbed into industry and to become self-respecting citizens, and feel they are free from any taint of patronage or of charity.
Personally I do not see anything very baffling about the problem. If all the big firms would put some good will into the matter there is not one in any industry that could not make a, job for one of these men. I am quite satisfied that it would not be an uneconomic proposition for employers in the long run. In cases where a job has been made for a man it is my experience that he has proved ultimately that while he may be lame in his legs or his arms, he is not
lame in his head; these men have qualified for other situations which the employer never dreamed they would be capable of filling. I know one man who had a job found for him, and as a result of the contentment he enjoyed by reason of the fact that he was employed he made such progress that he was able to take up his own trade again, with some little assistance.
In the north, however, I do not find that such concerns as colliery companies are taking the sympathetic attitude as was described by my colleague on my right. Very largely through bad trade, probably, we are finding that there are a great many disabled miners for whom the mining companies seem to have very little sympathy. It is quite obvious that a man who has lost a leg cannot go down a mine to hew coal, but he should be found another situation, and given training if necessary to fit him for such situation. If it is to be a case of compulsion, I would not hesitate about it at all. I should have no hesitation about compulsion, but I think it is unfair to compel Government contractors and local authorities and not to compel some very big firms who have taken up a totally irreconcilable attitude to this question.

Mr. LUNN: If my hon. Friend will allow me, I would like to add a word on the point with which he has just dealt. Many hard things are said about colliery owners in this House, most of which they deserve, but I happened to be a member of a committee which, immediately after the War, had to deal with this problem of taking men back, and, speaking for West Yorkshire, I can say that every man was taken back into employment—every man, including two conscientious objectors, whom we finished up with. So far as our own district is concerned, those are the facts.

Mr. PALIN: I do not think my hon. Friend was quite justified in interrupting my speech, because I said nothing with regard to West Yorkshire employers at all. I think it is pretty well known that I represent a Newcastle Division, where the type of employer, I regret to say, is not so generous as those described by either of my two hon. Friends on this side who have spoken. Only to-day I have written to the Ministry of Labour calling attention to
a miner who has lost his leg, who has been demobilised all this time, and who appeals very pathetically either for employment or training to fit him for some job where he can get his living independent of charity. I feel all ought to be compelled, and then there would be no need to "boost" those who have done what was a plain, straight duty to their fellows.
Whether they have been disabled in war or in industry, they ought not to be thrown on the scrap heap when they have rendered service to the community, and I feel we might make the Motion a little wider and set forth that it is the bounden duty of all employers to find employment for ex-service men who can render service. An employer has no right to expect he can make profit out of the labour of one of these men right away, particularly if the man has not been in the industry before. But I am satisfied that with patience and good feeling they can ultimately become of such value that, possibly, their patriotism may find a reward in some other direction. In every case where an ex-service man is found begging it ought to be the duty of every citizen to make inquiries and see that he is provided for in some other way. It is a disgrace to see men without arms or legs, or otherwise disabled, begging in our streets. Nothing we can say is too strong for those who have avoided their responsibilities in this connection. No doubt many of them would not now have had their businesses but for the sacrifices and the disabilities of these men. I support the Resolution, and think it hardly goes far enough to secure the result which the hon. Members who submit it desire.

Major ASTOR: I would like very briefly to support this Motion, because if it be carried I think it will give a great stimulus to the employment of ex-service men throughout the country. By passing it the House will not merely lend its authority to an existing practice which has achieved considerable result, but it will also be setting the best of all examples to local authorities and to public utility companies. I do not think it is an unfair request that we should give to the King's Roll the assistance of which it stands in need. As a member of the National Council it is not for me to
sing its praises and thanks to the efforts of my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Bootle (Lieut.-Colonel Henderson) they have achieved a lot. As one who on general grounds has always been opposed to the principle of compulsion in this matter, I can say that the council has done all it could to help these men.
Nevertheless there are still 21,000 disabled men out of employment, and I think that is a standing reproach, which cannot be ignored. If the National Council is to maintain the voluntary principle, and I think we all agree that that is desirable, it must use every reasonable inducement to carry out its aims. I think the hon. and learned Member for Bolton (Sir H. Cunliffe) has done a real public service by raising this question to-night. I do not agree that this Resolution may prove to be merely a pious opinion. Where there has been laxity on the part of employers in giving employment to these sufferers, I believe it has been more due to carelessness on their part than to any want of sympathy for these men. Therefore, I hope that this timely reminder that the hon. and learned Member for Bolton has moved will not only receive the support of this House but will also be supported all over the country as it deserves.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I want to say to those Labour Members who are supporting this Motion that it seems peculiar that, if they are committed to a peace policy—and most of them have advocated that men ought not to take part in war—it is somewhat strange that we are now to be told that those who took part in the War are to get preferential treatment, and this in face of the fact that many of us advocated that we ought not to go to war, and now many people are being penalised for taking their advice. The period of the War is now ended, so far as war service is concerned, and from that time every man is entitled, whether he was wounded or not, to fair and impartial treatment. Whether the undertaking of the War was right or wrong, if men were injured in it, it is the solemn duty of the nation to compensate every man for the injuries he has received. These men, having come back into civil life and having received their pensions for the War period, the matter
is ended, and those men should only afterwards have equal rights with other men.
10.0 P.M.
I am told that these disabled ex-service men should have a preference, but I wonder why. I went to the Glasgow Carporation, which is on the King's Roll, in regard to one of my constituents. His father served four years in the War, but he is now dead. The man I applied to the Glasgow Corporation about lost his leg in saving the life of a child in a street accident, but he his got no compensation, and when I appealed to the Glasgow Corporation on his behalf for employment they refused to give him work which he was quite fitted to do simply because he was not an ex-service man. Am I to be told now that a man who saves a life in this way is not to be treated as well as a man who receives an injury in the War. This man was told by the corporation that he was not an ex-service man, and as the corporation desired to be honest to the King's Roll people, they could not employ him, and they gave the job to an ex-service man, although the man who got the job had a pension. An hon. Member told us that on looking into scone of the great stores in London he had observed men doing work which could very well be done by ex-service men who suffered from some disability. I quite agree with that contention, but it is not the function of the House of Commons to displace other men in order to employ ex-service men, and our function is to find work for everybody without displacing others. This House ought to apply itself to the problem not of placing some men in work and displacing others, but it is our duty to get these men work without displacing those already in employment in my own native city of Glasgow the corporation is a large employer of labour, and they frequently have to employ night watchmen and other similar employés, and these are jobs suitable for a man who is disabled in some way or other. A man may be minus an arm or a leg, but nevertheless he is quite able to carry out the duties connected with jobs of that kind.
I go to the Glasgow Corporation and I find applying for such jobs perhaps a young man who has been in the Army and lost a leg or an arm, and who is in receipt of a pension. Another applicant for the same job may be a man of 60 years of
age, too old in most cases, according to the regulations of the Minister of Labour, to get unemployment benefit, and after he has drawn his standard benefit he is not always considered fit for his ordinary work, and he cannot get benefit. Besides this he is too young for an old age pension. This man of 60 makes an application because being beyond the usual age he cannot do his former work. He makes an application to the Glasgow Corporation and proves that he has been 40 years a ratepayer. And yet a young man probably 30 years his junior comes forward who has a pension and he gets the job and the King's Roll Committee say to the older applicant, "You have never been in the Army, your sons may have been in the Army and been killed but we must refuse you employment.
From the point of view of a Socialist, I object to praising up men merely because of their military service. I also say that some of the men who were employed during the War in the City of Glasgow were much more useful performing their daily function at home. Many of these skilled workers were employed at home at the request of the Government. I had myself a brother-in-law who was brought back home after joining the Army on four occasions, and he was put back to his work and told not to join again, and these cases are very common. Why should these men have to take second place to ex-service men totally object to it and I will fight with all my might against the principle of separating the population into ex-service men and non-service men. Each man during that time performed what he thought was a useful contribution towards the nation's needs. Having passed that period, think it is the duty of this nation to compensate those who were injured in the War extremely well, but it is not the purpose of the Government to carry it beyond that.
I have always felt that if you are going to do it compulsion will be the only method. Take, for instance, what happened when I knew this Motion was coming on. I made some local inquiries. The local King's Roll is almost a farce. The method is that they have got to see that employers are maintaining the 5 per cent. You have no officials. The Glasgow King's Roll Committee do not employ one official to go and see that the numbers
are maintained. Take the jute company. I do not want here in the House to attack a company, but if hon. Members question it I will give the name. They put in as having the full number. Nobody knows, and suddenly one day a man puts in for a job but does not get it, and then, not because they are right or wrong, but because of spite he informs the committee and they find they have never had the number required. You have no finances in order to inquire, and all that happens is that firms say what they are doing and you have got to accept their word practically, because you have not any means in Glasgow of employing people in any way to check the figures.
Let me put this final point. I think this is going to affect the working people already employed very seriously. If you compel a firm to employ its 5 per cent., say in the case of a firm with 20 men, then below 20 men it does not need to employ a disabled man, but when it becomes 21 then it ought to employ a man. What does a firm do? It does not want to employ this man, or else it would have done it when it numbered 19. What happens is that, instead of starting two or three men to get a job through, it starts to work the men already employed overtime in order to get the output raised. Apart from the King's Roll Committee making no efforts to solve the problem of unemployment, the Committee will tend possibly to make the problem even more extreme than it is To give an illustration, I worked right up until I came into this House. In the place where I worked the employer was not a bad man at all. He had a staff of 35 and 36 men, and was on the Roll. Work came in which made the firm extremely busy. About 20 men had to be started, and if he had increased his staff, it would have meant increasing his number of disabled ex-service men. What he did was to work us a considerable amount of overtime in order to keep the number down, and so not to start the ex-service men.
Far from helping the problem, all that did was to make worse the problem not only of the ex-service disabled man but also the problem of the ex-service man who was not disabled at all. There is the problem. Why should we start to dismiss men. Some of them have brothers and fathers, and it is awful here in this world to state exactly who and which person
makes the greatest sacrifice. I am against this principle, and I say it is bad and unsound. If the Minister a Labour is serious, he can start in his Department better than anybody. I inquired not later than Friday last week if the Minister of Labour in his unemployment Regulations gives the disabled ex-service men much preference in regard to unemployment benefit. He does not give them very much. He does not give the ex-service men who are not disabled any preference. In those cases they are treated on all fours like every other person. If he is serious and in favour of this Resolution let him start with his own Regulations regarding unemployment benefit. To me it is wrong in this way to get cheap popularity. This King's Roll has never functioned. It is a cheap way of getting popularity on a subject which I do not think ought to be the means of getting it and for my part I will always be opposed to any separation of the population in this way.

Captain FAIRFAX: I am very glad to have the opportunity to speak again on a subject which I think has been described as a hardy annual, but which has a personal interest for me because by good fortune I had the opportunity of introducing a Resolution last year calling attention to the position of disabled ex-service men and the King's Roll. The Resoluticn I moved on that occasion had a much wider application than the Resolution now before the House, but I think it was a wise plan that the Resolution this evening should have been narrowed down to deal with this specific proposition. I do not think it is necessary to enter into the arguments advanced by the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan), which might also be described as a hardy annual, because I had a very clear recollection of the same somewhat rambling and irrelevant ideas being detailed at great length to the House on a previous occasion.

Mr. STEPHEN: Try to be as offensive as possible.

Captain FAIRFAX: I am trying to be as little offensive as possible. Last year, the House unanimously passed the Resolution which was before it then and, I think, in spite of these arguments, it will carry the Resolution unanimously to-night. In the last Debate the King's
Rod played a prominent part and, if I might turn to what the Minister of Labour said on that occasion, I should like to quote one passage. He said:
The preference that is given in contracts to those who are on the King's Roll is a very real preference, as everybody knows who is a tenderer for any contract for the Government. It means that where there is equality in price and in the quality of she product, without question the contract goes to the firm that is on the King's Roll, and in cases where things are much of a muchness the fact that a firm is on the King's Roll is taken into a-count and weight is given to it. That rule is absolutely applied to all contracts for the Government, with the exception of the few in Which a perfectly special subject matter is involved."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th February, 1925; col. 1041, Vol. 180.]
I think the last phrase, about "perfectly special subject-matter," answers the objection that was made by an hon. Member in the course of this Debate. I shoeld like to state the position in my own constituency with regard to this matter. Firms on the Roll in Norwich number 139, and employ 1,535 disabled ex-service men. Firms not on the Roll who have more than 25 employés number 40, so that, roughly speaking, 140 are on the Roll out of 180, which gives what I think the House will consider to be the fairly high proportion of 77 per cent. on the Roll. I should be interested to hear how other areas compare, with that, and one would like, if possible, to stimulate some form of competition between different areas in seeing how quickly they can wipe off what is practically a debit standing against them of 31,000 disabled ex-service men. The firms on the Roll in my constituency include the tramway company, the gas company, the corporation electricity works, the county council, and the engineer's department of Norwich Corporation. Unfortunately, however, none of these have found it practicable to restrict their contracts to firms on the Roll.
In the Debate last year, my right hon. Friend urged Members of the House to go back to their constituencies and do what they could to bring this matter home to the firms in their own areas, and not very long ago my right hon. Friend himself issued in the public Press an eloquent appeal to retail traders. Endeavouring to follow in his footsteps, I made an appeal in my local Press not long afterwards but, if I may be allowed to give
the House the benefit of my brief experience in the matter, I found that I had not timed my appeal very happily, for it was just about the period in the New Year when the Chancellor of the Exchequer is accustomed to issue his more peremptory demands, so that the seed I sowed fell upon land that was not so much barren of sympathy as denuded of cash. Really, the bulk of the work of the King's Roll has been done, but, as my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Bootle (Lieut.-Colonel Henderson) explained, we have a very powerful weapon in the method that was exhibited last Session of dealing with public utility corn-panics and corporations that come before this House asking for special powers. If those companies are not on the Roll, or decline to go on the Roll, this House has the very great power of being able to throw out their Bills. It exercised that right last Session, and is, I believe, prepared to exercise it again. In conclusion, I would express the hope that this Resolution will be carried with the same unanimous enthusiasm with which the House carried the previous Resolution, and that this time we shall get an effective solution and clear off this outstanding debt against us of 31,000 disabled ex-service men.

Mr. RYE: I understood the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) to say that no good could come out of the efforts of the King's Roll Committees. So far as my experience is concerned, speaking as a member of the Westminster King's Roll Committee, I think the exact reverse is the case. That committee was set up at the suggestion of the then Minister of Labour in 1923, and few firms or companies were then on the King's Roll. Thanks to the efforts of the committee—a committee composed of representatives of the City Council, of the local war pensions committee, of the employment committee, of the Ministry of Labour, and of leading firms in the City of Westminster—a large number of firms in the City enrolled, and I know that the efforts that have been made-by the Westminster Committee have undoubtedly borne fruit.
That committee has made a special point of endeavouring to get enrolments from among the Royal Warrant holders in particular, the leading West End clubs, and the hotels in the City.
So far as the Warrant Holders are concerned, I think that on the whole the result has been satisfactory, but still there are a considerable number of Warrant Holders who are not on the Roll, and some of them might, I think, see their way to put down their names. I know there is a little difficulty in the case of these Warrant Holders, for a number of them carry on special trades, such as those of picture dealers and dealers in antique furniture and china, and it is difficult to see how those particular traders could find employment for disabled ex-service men. But still there is yet a number of them who, I think, ought to be on the Roll and I shall hope that the publicity of this Debate will have the desired result and that we shall see an augmentation of the number. After all they are a privileged class. They have a great advantage over the other traders in the West End as they are distinguished by the fact that they hold the Royal Warrant, and I suggest that such of them as have not acceded to the appeal of the local committee ought to bear in mind the fact that they are a privileged class and do their duty and become members of the Roll.
As regards the clubs, I cannot say the Committee has been altogether successful, and when it comes to the hotels, I am bound to confess that, to all intents and purposes, the Committee has been unsuccessful: For some reason or another the proprietors and the large companies controlling hotels have not done their duty to the ex-service men Personal visits have been made by members of the Westmister King's Roll Committee to various hotels, and, as a rule, the answer given to the appeals has been that the hotels require physically fit men. But that is not altogether correct. We know that a lift-man is not necessarily a fit man. A man who has lost an arm or an eye is capable of working an electric lift, and I should hope to-night's publicity will result in the hotels seeing their way to come in and enrol. There are unfortunately in the West End a number of hotels employing a considerable number of foreigners. I am not going to say that is altogether wrong. I am not going to say there is any obligation on a hotel proprietor or a company running a hotel to have his staff wholly
and solely composed of English employés, but I think there should be a reasonable proportion of Englishmen on the staff. It is not enough for the proprietors to say they derive custom from foreigners who come to London, because after all those who use the London hotels arc, to a considerable extent, English people, and English people are entitled to have an English staff to wait upon them. I should hope that, with the publicity we have had to-night, those people who have held back because they do not wish to get rid of some of the foreigners in their employ will do their duty and come upon the Roll, and so give employment to these ex-service, men.
Then in Westminster we have done more than make a personal appeal to the various utility companies, firms and clubs, because we have set up a King's Roll Clerks Association for the purpose of giving work to a number of men so physically disabled that they find it impossible to obtain any work in the ordinary sense. That association was formed in the shape of a small private limited liability company on Armistice day last year. It was formed, thanks to assistance from the Minister of Labour, who gave a grant of £250, and to a grant of £100 from the British Legion. With the aid of that money—a small sum, unfortunately, only £350—a small business has been started in the basement of Abbey House, Victoria Street, and there to-day will be found engaged 16 men who are doing clerical work in addressing envelopes and circulars. This is a business which if publicity could be obtained could be materially increased, but, unfortunately the funds at the disposal of the association are too small to allow of any publicity in the form of advertisement. I hope the Minister of Labour will see his way, even though to-day we hear talk of necessary economies, to find a further small sum for the benefit of that Association. I hope further that throughout the country the example of Westminster in forming that Association will be followed, and that there will be other small companies formed for the express purpose of enabling disabled men who are unable to obtain physical work, to carry out clerical work and so obtain a reasonable living by way of augmentation of the small pensions they receive.

Mr. SMITH-CARINGTON: It is a great pleasure to me to have this opportunity of supporting the Resolution. The very first duty of our country is to these men who have been disabled in the War. We should look forward to giving them the fullest opportunity of useful life and happiness for the rest of their days. I look on this matter as one largely of a national character, and for that reason I think the Government and local authorities and all public bodies should give a very strong lead in supporting the King's Roll. I am not speaking alone of the five per cent. proportion which the King's Roll prescribes.
I hope the Government and the local authorities will set a particularly good axample, not only for the sake of encouraging others but also because it is only in that way, through the instrumentality of these bodies, that the general public can be given the privilege of participating in any burden which this may happen to entail. The Resolution is of a very moderate character. We are only asking that the Government should be put in the same position as any other customer when it has business to give out. Any other customer going into the market with a contract to place, particularly if it is in a big public undertaking, is in a position to name its own term; to a very large extent. The Government would be asking nothing unreasonable in asking for themselves the same privilege.
There is one further point to which I will draw attention, and that is the qualification for enrolment. It has been stated that the general principle was a 5 per cent. qualification. That is to say, that each firm above a certain size should employ five disabled men for every 100 in its employment. That is a qualification of a purely mathematical kind and, like all mathematical calculations, it does not quite fit in with real practical life. A more true test would be to vary the proportion according to the capacity of the works for employing disabled people and according to the quality of the burden that would be placed upon the industry when it employs these disabled men. There are a large number of industries, for instance, shipbuilding and collieries, where there are only a limited number, a small proportion, of jobs that are suitable for disabled men. Indeed,
to introduce disabled men into many of the jobs in such industries would only be to cause accidents. They are unsuited for the work. We have to remember, too, that these jobs are still further reduced in number by the fact that in these industries the number of aceidente in the normal course is rather high, and that the particular jobs which are suitable for disabled men are, by the practice of the trade, very largely reserved, and I think quite reasonably reserved, for men who have grown old in the service of the company or men who have already suffered injury in its service. It, therefore, seems to follow that in certain industries there is a very small proportion of places available for disabled men.
Another thing that we have to consider is the burden upon industry, a burden which, be it great or small, is not entirely negligible. Here, again, we can very well urge that the percentage to qualify for the King's Roll may be varied in various industries. In recent times we have often heard of the distinction drawn between sheltered and unsheltered trades. It is a very important and well-founded distinction. It is applicable in these cases. If we look around some of our bigger industries, for instance, iron and steel—coal, after all, depends entirely upon the prosperity or otherwise of the iron and steel industry—and the allied trades, shipbuilding and heavy engineering, and so on, and if we take a batch of trades like those, exposed to the full blast of foreign competition, burdened with a great struggle to compete in the world's markets, and burdened additionally by an ever-growing pressure of rates, the application of the argument is apparent.
I would remind hon. Members opposite that when they succeed in the ballot they bring forward Motions on necessitous areas, and they, at any rate, will agree with me that it is in those districts, the iron and steel and coal districts, where the necessitous areas have arisen, and that it has arisen because those trades are depressed and, consequently, rating values are down and rating quotas are up. Unemployment, too, puts an extra strain on local authorities. Then, of course, those very same industries suffer the chief brunt of such additional burdens upon industry as widows' pensions and the new scheme of old age pensions.
These fall with the greatest force upon that class of industries, because it is the class which, on the whole, employs the greatest number of people.
I suggest to those who are in charge of the King's Roll that they should revise their schedules of requirements according to industries, relieving those that are necessarily in great difficulty in approaching the 5 per cent. basis, and, if necessary, increasing the percentage and the burden upon the sheltered industries, which are not so subject to the competition and the conditions which I have suggested. I am well aware that in practice some little concessions have been made, but possibly those concessions are not fully known, and I feel that along the lines of my suggestion—more or less of a sliding scale—some help might be given in bringing new recruits to the King's Roll, and stopping also a certain number of the disqualifications which are due to the difficulties which certain trades have in maintaining their position. I throw out that suggestion in a friendly spirit, my intention and wish being to give every support to the King's Roll.

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Sir Arthur Steel-Maitland): There are very few words that need be said on behalf of the Government with regard to this Motion. The chief thing I would ask the House to do is heartily to endorse it, and to give their decision, if they will, unanimously in favour of it. I quite agree it is not a revolutionary Motion by any manner of means. It expresses what is in fact the existing practice of the Government, but it also does two things. It gives that practice the quite deliberate endorsement of the House—if it is carries I—and not: only so, but states that policy in a clear and definite and easily imitable form so that it may be made, a standard for local authorities and other bodies to follow. That is the great virtue of it, and that is one of the reasons why I commend it to the House. The hon. Member for Abertillery (Mr. Barker) befriended the Motion as I knew he would. Anyone who knows the hon. Member's own record in the past might be quite sure that he would do so, and indeed for him the Motion was not enough. He wanted something more drastic, or as he put it, more watertight. He objected to the phrase "save in exceptional circumstances" I
can tell him that if only it were possible, I would be glad to omit that phrase am with him in wishing to make the Motion as watertight as it can be made, but there are some reasons which make it necessary to give some power of exception. You may have a business which is too small, or a business which is making a patent article which you cannot do without, or to take another case, it is just conceivable that other businesses which were making the same article, if the number were few, might try to hold up the Government or the local authority which followed our example, in the matter of price. For those reasons it is wise to have a carefully guarded power of exception, though speaking for the Government, I can say it will be used in the strictest possible way, and I hope it will be used in the strictest possible way by any local authority which may follow the Government's example.
The hon. Member for Stourbridge (Mr. Pielou) wanted to know whether the example could be followed up and what would happen in the matter of sub-contracts in connection with Government contracts. As regards the last point, I can reassure him at once. No Government contractor has the power to subcontract without the leave of the Government, and in such cases the Government will take care to see that in sub-contracts as in main contracts the same principle is observed. I agree with him as to his other point. The real question is not merely how far we shall be clear and deliberate as to the Government practice. It is a question of how far we shall follow up that policy in order to get direct results from it. In this House, with the exception of the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) whose views I know quite well, there hai been nothing but general agreement on the principle. It remains to be seen what we do as individual Members in this House afterwards by our action and our example, and also what the local authorities may do. I have listened to the speeches that have been made, and I only hope that we may enlist the help of those who made the speeches and all the others who may agree with the Motion in seeing that the example of this Resolution, if passed, is imitated by others. There is one Member of this House, if he will permit me to refer to him, who really has been constant
in this work, day in and day out, week in and week out, on behalf of the disabled ex-service men, and that is my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Bootle (Lieut.-Colonel Henderson). He has levoted his time and his trouble consistently for their welfare, and I say quite definitely that that has been the case with the majority of the King's Roll committees with which I personally have been familiar, and I know of some work that has been done in Glasgow which I think, if the hon. Member for Gorbals was aware of it would have perhaps caused him to revise the opinion I understood him to give.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I did not want to cast any reflections, but I meant that, apart from the energy of the Committee, the Committee had no way of officially inquiring to see whether employers did right or wrong.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I will deal with that later. May I say here publicly, what I have said to individual King's Roll Committees when I have met them, and amongst others to that of which the hon. Member for West Newcastle (Mr. Palin) was chairman, and that is that I would like to express, on behalf of the Government, our obligations for the work that they have done and are doing. It is easy for us on one evening in the year to get up and express approval of work done on behalf of ex-service men, but it is a different thing for the men who have continued to do that work without any searchlight being thrown on their endeavours, month in and month out, for several years past. But that does mean—and here I agree with the hon. Member for Stourbridge—that if we, as Members of this House, are really in earnest in support, of this Resolution, we have to use our endeavours with local authorities and other bodies in every case that we can to see that they act similarly. In so far as they have either not joined the King's Roll themselves when they naturally could have been expected to do so, or are unwilling to adopt a similar policy with regard to the contracts that they issue, we should see what influence we can use individually in order to persuade them to follow the same practice.
Perhaps it would be wise for one moment to bring back the problem to its
real perspective. It is not a great one in size, in reality. The numbers are much less now than they have been, not merely because, as my hon. and gallant Friend behind me said, in process of time the number of men to be dealt with grows less, but because actually in the past year there has been a real improvement in the Dumber of disabled ex-service men taken into employment. It is not a big number—31,000; 18,000 of those are really fitted for their own trade, and it is the balance, the "B" men, 11,000 in number, and a very small number, under 1,000, of "C" men, who are the real difficulty. It is not, as I say, a big problem. In its nature, I quite agree, it is different, because insofar as men remain unemployed, it is an aspersion on the national honour. But even if the size of the problem is not, great, it is not right that some firms only should bear the burden, leaving the rest of it either not shouldered at all, or leaving the good firms an undue proportion amongst themselves. My own belief is that a very large number of the firms who are not on the King's Roll at this moment are so more from ignorance in many cases than from want of good-will.
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Bootle and I did a certain amount of campaigning last year, in order to bring the need to the notice of certain trade associations, and I really believe that, once the need is brought home, it will find a response with a great many, at any rate, of those who are not at present qualified to be on the Roll. I have a feeling that in the City of London there is quite a large number of firms who, if it were brought home to them, would do their duty in this respect, who simply have not thought of it properly up to the present time. Moreover, the burden is not so great as it appears at first sight. I can well imagine that a firm, if it were hard put to it in days of depression and severe competition, might be inclined to say, "You are asking us to shoulder yet another addition to our costs when we can hardly meet our expenses as it is." As a matter of fact, the addition to costs is largely overstated, and the apprehension is greater than it ought to be.
I was extraordinarily struck by the fact that a 50 per cent. disability, as judged in the matter of War pensions, might have a very different effect according to the kind of industry in which the man who
suffered that disability was engaged. In going through the Lord Roberts workshops, I would not have noticed, had I not been aware of the fact beforehand, that the men were disabled to the extent they were. You would hardly have imagined that, except for some 18 or 20 able-bodied men as instructors and helpers, the whole of the rest, about 170 or 180, were disabled to the extent they were. It is true that here and there a man would not be able to do a great deal of useful work, but in very many cases a man who had got a 50 per cent. disability, judged on the basis of the War pension, would be 100 per cent. disabled for one job, but perfectly fit for another. I remember seeing a man, by trade an electrician, who was likely to make a first-class worker in lacquer work. I remember, again, seeing a man with only one arm and an iron adaptation on the other, doing woodworking with machinery as well as many fit men would do it. Just for that reason I do not think the burden on costs is as great as many people really think it is. That, I think, is one of the answers to the contention of the hon. Member for Abertillery that a pension ought to be judged, not as a War pension but as an industrial pension. I do not think it could be done fairly, and, what is more, I would only ask him to remember that when that proposal was made—I think in 1918—it was opposed and I think rightly opposed, in their own interests by the disabled ex-service men themselves.
There is I think no reason to take up time further except to reply in one brief word to the objection on general, principles of the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan). If there are two duties which are incubent on men, to emphasise one duty does not mean that the other should be neglected. It may quite well be that the community may have a duty towards men injured in civil employment. It does not detract from any obligations in that respect to recognise that it has a special obligation to the class with which we are dealing to-night. I can only say regarding the hon. Member's other arguments that, if he wishes to detract from any authority I might have speaking as Minister of Labour, we employ 60 per cent. of our staff as ex-service men, and as to disabled men we make a, special exception
in their case in the Regulations. We ask members of the King's Roll Committee to go on Rota Committees to see that special consideration is given to the fact of their disablement. I will trouble the House no longer except to say that I commend this Resolution to their attention. I hope they will pass it. I would impress upon them this, To pass it to-night is one thing, but the help of all of them individually to have it followed up so as to have a substantial effect, is the proof of real intention to help which should lie behind our assent to the Resolution.

Mr. T. SHAW: I hope with the Minister that the House will not only pass the Resolution but that every Member will do his level best to see it carried out in the letter and spirit. There is nothing worse than a man severely injured being left to brood on his injuries, and work that could be provided for him is not only a great relief to him financially but it is a greater relief to him morally and from that standpoint alone I hope the House will be not only willing but enthusiastic in seeing that the Resolution is carried out. Is it too much to ask employers, whose property after all was saved very largely by these men, to do their level best to see that the men get really sympathetic treatment, not as a charity but as an absolute right; and is it too much to ask that in the giving out of Government contracts those employers who are trying their best should be helped and assisted in their work by favour being shown to them, if the case demands that favour? There may be cases that may arise in which it is absolutely impossible to carry out the Resolution but those cases would be very few and far between. I add my opinion to the opinion of the Minister of Labour not only that the House should pass the Resolution but that all of us individually and collectively should do our level best to see it carried out in the letter and in the spirit.

Mr. R. RICHARDSON: To the credit of the mineowners this can be said that at least they took back after the War all their former employés. There has been some suggestion made, with which I agree, that there might be a relaxation of boards of guardians rules in some instances; in the case of men who have been severely injured. I also want to
say, in respect to the co-operative movement, that they have received back men who were injured in the War. We are glad of what has been done, and I can assure the Minister of Labour that whatever we on these benches can do we will be glad to do to bring about the purpose of the Resolution.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved,
That, in the opinion of this House, it is the duty of the Government in all Government contracts to make provision for the employment to the fullest possible extent of disabled ex-service men, and to this end to confine such contracts, save in exceptional circumstances, to employers enrolled on the King's National Roll.

EMPIRE SETTLEMENT.

Lord APSLEY: I beg to move,
That this House is of opinion that His Majesty's Government should make every effort to stimulate and assist every suitable form of migration and settlement within the Empire.
I am afraid that the three minutes left is rather a short time to discuss an all-embracing question such as that of migration and settlement within the Empire. I had rather hoped that any debate which might arise on this Motion would be regarded as the preamble to a very much fuller debate at a later time. I confess that I had looked forward very much to some of the speeches that I should hear from both sides of the House on this question, which is one which I should hope will be discussed fully. It has aroused considerable interest, not only in this country, where it is arousing a great deal more day by day—the foundation being set—but also in the Dominions overseas, Any statements on this subject which are made in this House will be noted with considerable interest by all those responsible for making public opinions in the Empire. Therefore, I think it would serve no useful purpose if we attempt to discuss this question in the course of the now remaining half minute. I hope that hon. Members will in the meantime give this question their very earnest consideration, and will consult their constituents, and the many people who will probably write to them on this question, so that when the time arrives to discuss the matter
more fully in this House they will come and give their views, and state their questions and their doubts with a view to serving the purpose at which we aim.

It being Eleven of the Clock, the Debate stood adjourned.

SUPPLY.

Again considered in Committee.

[Mr. JAMES HOPE in the Chair.]

CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1925–26.

CLASS II.

BOARD OF TRADE.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £12,700, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1926, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Committee of Privy Council for Trade, and Subordinate Departments, including certain Services arising out of the War.

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister): I think it will be for the convenience of the Committee if I explain what are the expenses for which this Supplementary Estimate is sought. There are only two items in the Vote—Incidental Expenses, and Food Liquidation Department. The Incidental Expenses relate exclusively to the Census of Production. When the Estimates for the year were laid before the House it was impossible to forecast how far the expenditure voted for the Census in 1924–25 would have materialised. The Estimates have to be put in some months before the close of the financial year. The full amount taken in respect of 1924–25 was not expended, owing to the fact that the forms did not come forward from the Stationery Office as rapidly as had been expected. A number of forms—they run into thousands and thousands—could not be sent out in the last financial year, and all those which it was impossible to send out in the last financial year were sent out in the present financial year. Not only did we overtake the lag but we did something more, which I think the Committee will agree was reasonable.
It is very important to get this Census of Production as quickly as possible. I was very much pressed, rightly so I think, to speed it up as much as possible, and as a consequence we have not only caught up the lag of last year but have also anticipated some expenditure which ordinarily would have been incurred in the next financial year. Not only have we got out all the forms, but we have also sent out reminders to a number of firms. The expenditure is entirely for stationery and postage. It is the overplus of what should have been done a year ago and the anticipation of something which would have been done next year. There is no question of exceeding the recognised cost of the Census of Production. It only means that we have been able to speed it up.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: We would like to know what he is going to do with the Census of Production.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I thought that had already been approved by the House.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Guillotined.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE - LISTER: The House, having ordered the Census of Production, I should not be in order in discussing it.

The CHAIRMAN: The policy has already been decided.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Without going into the question of policy at all, although it was guillotined, what is he going to do with this Census?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I do not want to be drawn into a discussion upon the main Vote, but I think the whole House will agree that a Census of Production is absolutely vital.

The CHAIRMAN: The right hon. Gentleman is now dealing with a question of policy.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I will content myself by saying that the question of policy has already been approved by the House and the country. The other expenditure for which I am asking a Vote amounting to £5,100 is for the Food Liquidation Department. That will mean that last year £16,853 was
spent, and this year we propose to spend £11,330. The reason the original estimate is exceeded is, in the first place, that there has been considerable litigation with regard to charges for packers, and a final decision has now been reached in the House of Lords. In 1920 the claims for requisitions of food-stocks ran into about £120,000,000. In this litigation the sum in dispute was about £4,000,000. Our contention was that the amount due was only £1,500,000. There was an arbitration and the result, after being carried to the House of Lords, was substantially that the judgment upheld our contention. It then became the duty of the Food Liquidation Department to readjust the whole of these accounts, which ran into something like £120,000,000, and this readjustment has saved the Government a large sum of money.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: What was the total sum involved?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The difference between £4,000,000 and £1,500,000. Our contention was that we ought to pay about £1,500,000, and the judgment of the House of Lords was substantially in favour of the contention of the British Government. This meant a great deal of accounting work and very considerable legal expenses, but the judgment was in our favour.
The other item, which we did not expect would carry on so long or involve us in so much expense, is the accounts of the Wheat Commission. In the Wheat Commission during the War Great Britain acted as purchaser on behalf of the pool, which included, not only this country, but our Allies, and it included transactions which in the case of France went up to £112,000,000 and in the case of Italy, £126,000,000. Ceder the arrangement we were to accept the certificate of the Comptroller and Auditor—General. The account was made up and the Comptroller and Auditor-General gave his certificate, but that certificate was challenged—I do not mean in the sense that it was not an accurate accounting statement—but the French and Italian Governments required from our Government an itemised account, and it was clear that these itemised accounts had got to be given. I am glad to say now the Italian Government have accepted the certificate in regard to these
accounts, so that we shall have no further work in connection with the Italian accounts.

Mr. LANSBURY: Is it part of a bargain?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: It is part of an arrangement that no further question will arise.

Mr. LANSBURY: I mean the debt arrangement.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The hon. Member is quite right. In the debt arrangement we took the opportunity to clear up outstanding issues and the Italian Government have accepted our figures, therefore, we need do no further work in that connection.

Mr. THURTLE: Did the outstanding questions include the matter of Iraq?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: That is really rather irrelevant. It was not concerned in the Wheat Commission. The French Government required itemised accounts and we are at the present time being supplied with these and are engaged in settling a large number of questions arising out of them. I am sure the Committee will feel that as we have to go through these accounts again it is vital that until they are finally sealed the men who have been working on these accounts all the time should be available in order that all the accounts may be substantiated.
These are the only two items which arise and make this Estimate necessary. In both cases I think the Committee will agree that the extra expense which has been incurred beyond that in the Estimate has in the one case resulted in a very considerable saving to the British taxpayer, and in the other case will, I hope, result in substantiating all the claims which have been approved by the Comptroller and Auditor-General.

Mr. GILLETT: I understand from the Minister that this money is being spent purely on staff and nothing else, because, as the right hon. Gentleman says, the legal expenses were obtained from the other side—

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: No; the legal expenses which we have to pay amount to £4000. The £11,330 is divided into £7,230 for salaries and £4,100 for law charges, and incidentals.

Mr. GILLETT: That partly answers the question I was going to put to the Minister. I noticed that last year, when the total expenditure was about £8,000, there was a staff of 27, and that in the year of which we are now speaking it was intended only to employ 16 in this Department. The Minister said that it, was important to keep the men who had had to deal with these figures. Are we to understand that the staff has not been reduced from 27 to 16, and, therefore, that this expenditure consints largely of the payments to them, plus about £4,000 for legal expenses? I take it that this year we have spent on this Department £8,000—

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: We spent £16,000.

Mr. GILLETT: I was referring to the Estimate given to us, on page 78, for the Food Liquidation Department, but I think the Minister is also taking in the Wheat Commission as well.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: That was really why I gave the figure of £16,853. I know that the figure of £8,000 was nut in the Estimate, but that figure was greatly exceeded. Actually, the Food Liquidation Department cost £16,853 last year, but a Supplementary Estimate was not necessary in that year because the balance was made up by savings in other directions.

Mr. GILLETT: It seems to me rather an amazing statement. I thought we might always take these figures correct. Do I understand that the figure for 1924–25 in this hook, namely, £8,400 is really incorrect?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: That was the Estimate, but the Estimate was considerably exceeded.

Mr. GILLETT: Therefore, as far as comparison is concerned, it is quite valueless?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Quite.

Mr. GILLETT: Do we understand that the other figures in this book are equally valueless? Am I correct in thinking that the staff has been retained, and that that is really the explanation, together with legal expenses, of this expenditure? Or
are we to understand that the staff has been increased in order to meet the special emergencies of the various Departments? What I want to get at is whether we are having a still larger staff. These figures have been worked at for years, and, surely, the members of the staff must have had them years ago all of them must have been worked out in the years that have gone by.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I gather that the result of the legal adventures of the Board of Trade is that we have saved the difference between £4,000,000 and £1,500,000 in the case of the American bacon packers, and have given Italy £115,000,000 for wheat supplied during the War—

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Of course we have not.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: The right hon. Gentleman skimmed over hundreds of millions, and I want to put one or two questions to elucidate these points. They are points of extreme interest to the country; and I think they should be a little further explored. This staff has been kept on for seven years after the War, in order to settle these matters. I do not complain of that I think the Food Control Department should be kept in nucleus for some time to come—it may be extremely valuable, and I hope the dot, and information in its possession are being very carefully preserved. I think I may not be very wrong in prophesying that it may be required in the near future. Can we he informed as to the facts with regard to the wheat transactions and the arrangements come to with Italy and France? I have, with others, been pressing for some information as to the extraordinary arrangement that was come to the other day by our priceless Chancellor of the Exebequer—

The CHAIRMAN: The staff did not negotiate the recent settlement with Italy.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I do not follow that. We are asked to vote the money for this staff, which had to be kept on so that they could have their hand on the figures for this settlement, and we are entitled to know why it was not settled before, and why the staff was
not kept on, and one or two other items. The right hon. Gentleman talked airily about hundreds of millions to France and Italy and some obscure case in the House of Lords which I do not think we can be expected to follow, and we are entitled to further information. This seems to roe another case of a camouflaged Estimate for a very small sum which covers immense transactions that the House is not allowed to discuss, and is given this fragmentary information about. I had to drag from him the information that it was money due from us to the American bacon factories, and he waxed sarcastic and told me America was where the pigs came from. That was not necessary. I wanted to get to the bottom of this transaction. It has saved us £25,000,000, and that is all to the good. The right hon. Gentleman was so glib that it was difficult to take down the figures. I did not catdh the number of hundreds of millions involved in the wheat transactions with France, but they are all part of the same transactions covered by this little token Vote of £5,000, and because it is 11 o'clock we are to pass it through. As to information for the taxpayer who had to find the original hundreds of millions and is paying interest on it, not a bit. We are told this is from America where the pigs come from. It would not do to discuss it further. It is not really good enough, and I hope other hon. Members who have a much closer grasp of these financial questions than I have will follow it up. I do not think in hundreds of millions, but I am trying to help the unfortunate taxpayer who has to find the money. We seem to have saved £25,000,000 on bacon and have forgiven Italy £115,000,000 for wheat that we bought from the Argentine with our money and sold to Italy. It is one more example of the extremely unsatisfactory manner in which the country's finances are handled by this Government, and the right hon. Gentleman in particular.

Mr. STEPHEN: The right hon. Gentleman Las given us a certain amount of information with regard to this Estimate, but I should like a little more. I do not want to be unreasonable, but I suggest that under heading D he might give us some more information about the Census of Production. I do not want at all to consider the question of policy involved
in taking this Census of Production. We are all anxious to get as much information as possible. Surely the Minister can tell us when we are going to get some value for this money which is being estimated for. Surely he can give us some indication of the range of enquiries. After all, the original Estimate was for £1,750 and we are now asked to vote a revised Estimate of £9,350, involving an increase of £7,600. I should like a little more explanation as to why there is this big difference between the original Estimate and the present sum. I am sure he will have good reason for it, in view of the fact that the Government are so anxious to carry through a sound policy of economy. Has he any idea when we shall have the fruits of this fresh expenditure and be able to see how things are going in regard to reductions? I was interested in the figures he gave in regard to the packing litigation. He said a sum of £4,000,000 was involved, and the Government's idea was that £1,000,00 should cover the amount involved. I do not think he was as definite as the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) suggested, because when he was pressed as to the amount saved, he said that one of the leading principles of the Government case had been supported by the House of Lords. On some of the minor issues of the case the Government was not so successful in the appeal.
Can the right hon. Gentleman give us any idea as to what sum we are likely to be called upon to expend in this direction? I think I am right in saying that £1,500,000, the original estimate of the Government, will be exceeded to some extent. Possibly it may be that the results of the litigation have not yet been fully decided. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will give us fuller particulars of the stated case that went to the House of Lords, and who were the parties in the case, so that we may look up the case and get full information in regard to it. The hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull suggested that the right hon. Gentleman might have issued a White Paper in connection with the matter. He might meet our case if he would promise to issue a White Paper.
There is a further point, in connection with the Royal Commission on Wheat Supplies with which I should like
to deal. I was interested in this, because I recollect that when his Majesty's present Government were in opposition, the leader of the Opposition said that he was willing to contemplate a bigger purchase of food from the various Dominions, and also arrangements for its distribution in, this country at cost price. I wonder whether there is something in the mind of the Minister in this connection?

The CHAIRMAN: This is for expenses in connection with the past.

Mr. STEPHEN: If you had given me a minute or two longer, Mr. Chairman, I would have made the connection plain. Here the Minister is stating that the Government are anxious to maintain the personnel in connection with this liquidation because of the experience that they have had. Seeing that they are maintaining the personnel, I suggest that I was entitled to ask whether, in connection with the personnel, they have also in contemplation the fact that it might be made the basis of an extended service in future for a new experiment in connection with the supply of—?

The CHAIRMAN: This is a matter of the liquidation of what is past, and not the construction of what is in the future.

Mr. STEPHEN: We are spending motley in maintaining a certain personnel, and is not one entitled to ask whether it is simply for carrying through the liquidation or for future developments as well? Am I not entitled to ask that?

The CHAIRMAN: No, I think not.

Mr. STEPHEN: I bow to that decision, and I am sure that the Minister will be relieved at not having to answer that question, which might involve the fate of his Government at no distant date. I hope that we shall get fuller information with regard to this Estimate. We are anxious to get to our homes, and if the Minister can give us some assurance that the country is going to get value for the money being expended on the Census of Production we will not put any difficulties in his way.

Mr. NEIL MACLEAN: Under the heading "Incidental Expenses" there are stated the sums that are to be repaid to the particular Departments, the
General Post Office and the Stationery Office, which have given services in connection with the Census of Production. In the Food Liquidation Department the right hon. Gentleman is spending money in two specific directions. One is the payment of salaries of the staff and the other is the expense of legal proceedings in connection with some Court case. In that particular Vote the right hon. Gentleman is asking for £5,100, bringing the total Estimate up to £11,500. But he makes no statement as to how much of that sum is to be spent in salaries and how much in legal expenses. As to that the Committee has a right to some information.
With regard to the Census of Production, the payment to the Stationery Office in the original Estimate was something like £800. We are here asked to vote £1,200 to the Stationery Office. Is this to be the final payment required by the Stationery Office or by the Post Office in connection with the compilation of the Census, or is the work to be continued, and, if so, for how long? How many further demands are we likely to have made upon us to meet the cost of this compilation? Are we to build up by successive Estimates a sum much heavier than that represented by the original Estimate, supplemented by the present Estimate? Personally, I am not against the Census of Production if it is carried out in a proper way, and I am not against voting any sum of money which is legitimately required for it, provided that the results of the Census are going to be submitted to the House of Commons and the country. I feel sure that if we can have a proper Census of Production made it will stand very fittingly beside the census of population, and will enable us to know what are the factors of production at our disposal and the actual amount of production which can be derived from those factors, when required by the people of the country. Any sum within reason expended in providing necessary facts and figures will not be grudged by the Committee or by the country. Once we get to know the wealth-producing factors in our country we shall be provided with data of a very useful character, and if the Census is completed within the right hon. Gentleman's term of office it will be of great service to hon. Members on this side
when we move across to the benches opposite.

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member appears to be arguing in favour of the original policy of the Census of Production, which has already been approved by Parliament. The only point before the Committee is the cost.

Mr. MACLEAN: I am not grumbling at the cost.

The CHAIRMAN: Then the hon. Member's observations appear to be superfluous.

Mr. MACLEAN: I submit they are not, Sir, otherwise you would have called me to order sooner. As I say, I do not grudge the money, but I want information as to how much more is required.

Mr. ROY WILSON: Will the right hon. Gentleman give the Committee the information for which I asked a couple of months ago, as to when he expects to have the Census of Production ready for publication?

Captain GARRO-JONES: The Minister stated that one of the considerations which induced us to settle the debts of France and Italy was that those two nations did not continue to press for certain vouchers in connection with our invoices to them for the work we carried out on the Wheat Commission during the War. No actual concession of any sum of money was made; they merely said that they would not press for the vouchers. I want to get at what actual sum was involved, and what, were the sums which France and Italy respectively disputed. I think they are relevant as showing what value there was in the French and Italian concessions to us. There is one other point that I want to make, which may at first glance appear unimportant, but which, I think, the Committee will agree on further consideration is highly important. It refers to trio detailed amounts, one for £6,400 and the other for £1,200, under "Incidental Expenses." It was only yesterday that we were discussing the Stationery Office Vote, and a good many of us urged the right hon. Gentleman, who was endeavouring to get that Vote through, to institute more progressive methods in the administration of the Stationery Office, for we thought that they might be able to show a larger
profit on their operations, and so come to this House for less money.
The Stationery Office has made a charge of £1,200 to the right hon. Gentleman for certain services rendered. Is the Stationery Office charging excessive amounts to the other Government Departments for the services which it renders to them? Similarly, is the Past Office charging excessive amounts to the other Government Departments for its services to them? So far as I can see, we are unable to get at these amounts when we are discussing the Estimates, for the Stationery Office and for the Post Office, and I shall, therefore, be glad if the right hon. Gentleman will tell us what were the services rendered by the stationery Office and the Post Office respectively, in order that we may examine whether the terms entered into with those Departments were fair and equitable to the Board of Trade.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I want to put a point in regard to the fact that an amount of money, according to what I understood the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade to say, has been carried over from the previous year and has also in part been anticipated from what might have been the Estimate for the following year. He said it had been anticipated that they would use the services of the Stationery Office and the Post Office in the year ending March, 1925, and that, as that was not dime, the Estimate prepared on that basis was not discovered in time in order to decrease it. I could only understand that explanation if it were a question of sending out circulars, say, in the last few weeks of the year, and if that were so, the explanation seems to me to be adequate.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: indicated assent.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: Then how can it be anticipating the year 1926–27? I should like a little explanation of that. I understand it is a matter of sending out circulars in order to get information, and I think it must have been a case of sending out reminders, otherwise I do not see how it is to be explained. That is the first point I should like to have a little clearer, because it is a matter of the presentation to the House of suitable Estimates. I should have thought it was possible to have
brought the Estimate up-to-date earlier than this, and not to have had to come for a Supplementary Estimate at this time of the year.
The second point I would like to get clear is, how far this acceleration really assists us in getting out the results of the Census earlier, and when, approximately, as a result, we may hope to have the Census before us? I am sure hon Members in all parts of the House—certainly I for my part—will welcome acceleration of the Census of Production, because it is of the utmost necessity that we should have it in order to compare the facts with those which went before.

Mr. W. BAKER: I have endeavoured to be present at the introduction of each of the Supplementary Estimates in the present Session, and I should like, if I may, to compliment the President of the Board of Trade upon having given the Committee a great deal more information than any of his colleagues who have presented Supplementary Estimates up to this point. At the same time, I feel it is still true that the amount of information given in this Supplementary Estimate is not sufficient to enable ordinary Members of the Committee to understand and intelligently discuss the matters which are placed before them. If the endeavour on the part of the British Government was to persuade the Governments of France and Italy to accept a figure on anything like this basis, I can well understand the action of the French and Italian Governments in demanding itemised accounts think it would be very much better for everyone concerned, including the heads of the Government Departments, if future Supplementary Estimates could contain a very great deal more information than we are getting here. So far as. I understand, the President did not vouchsafe us any information with regard to the Census of Production, and it may very well be that I am under a misapprehension in that connection but my impression is that the Census of Production is taken once in 10 years, that, owing to the War, the last Census occurred somewhere about 1907, that the Census was taken during the present year 1925–26, and that a further Census will not occur for a period of 10 years.
If those are the facts, it does appear to me to be surprising that a Supplementary
mentary Estimate of this character should have to be brought before the Committee to-night. The Estimate for 1925–26, when compared with the Estimate for 1924–25, claims a reduction of £4,500 under heading D, and yet, despite that supposed reduction of £4,500 under that heading in the original Estimate, it is now necessary for the Department to ask for an additional sum of £7,600. Nothing has been said in my hearing which has been an explanation as to the new circumstances which justify transforming the reduction into the additional sum now asked for, and, I think, we are entitled to ask the President to take us a little bit more into his confidence, not only with regard to the anticipations when announcing the possible reduction of £4,500, but also to explain to us the precise circumstances which prevented the Department from adequately estimating the cost of the Census, having regard to the fact that its very nature makes it extremely easy, I should imagine, to estimate exactly what the cost will be. I would be glad to reinforce the appeal made by the Member for South Hackney (Captain Garro-Jones) in asking for more detailed information with regard to the service rendered by the Post Office and by the Stationery Office. In the case of the Post Office, I imagine that would be a simple statement as to the number of communications transferred from the one Department to the other. But so far as the Stationery Office is concerned, I think the information might be extremely illuminating. There is then the question of the Food Liquidation Department. I did not understand, Mr. Hope, that you objected to reference being made to the liquidation of that former Food Department; and if I am in order, I should like to say that I very much regret that the Food Department is in process of liquidation instead of being carried on in the interests of the whole of the people of the nation. So far as the actual figures are concerned, I would be glad if the President would once more give an analysis of the amount spent on salaries and upon legal expenses, in the hope that the matter may be made clearer to the Committee. I am not altogether certain as to the reasons why legal expenses have been incurred, seeing that the case was settled in the way he described.
Possibly when he comes to make reply to the general Debate he will be good enough to deal with that point.

Mr. JOHNSTON: I only desire to ask the right hon. Gentleman two brief questions. The first has reference to the Census of Production. I should like to ask him whether this expenditure for which he asks includes what I understood was promised at the time or after the last Census of Production was taken, namely, that there would be a short brief and concise handbook summarising the result of that Census for sale or distribution to the public generally. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the first bulky volumes of the Census of Production are practically of no general use whatever. To begin with, no one can afford to buy the volumes, and only a man with unlimited leisure, can afford to study them. If concise summary at 1s. or 2s. were published, it would have a wide sale in this country. Did any part of this expenditure make allowance for the compilation of a summary of the results of the census' Secondly. I would like to ask the President a, question in view of the very important statement made from the Treasury Bench last night by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, who declared from his place at that Box that great and important savings had been made and would be made in the future by His Majesty's Government as the result of handing over the larger or all the Government printing works to the State Printing Department which, to his surprise, was turning out the work infinitely cheaper than the private contractor to whom they had previously handed that work. It was a most amazing revelation of what we had hitherto supposed to be an anti-Socialist action on the Treasury Bench. I would like the President of the Board of Trade to give us a similar assurance to that we had from the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, that he will see to it that no private concerns in the printing trade will be allowed to run off with the booty, and, as they have done in the past, on the Financial Secretary to the Treasury's own admission, rob and plunder the people of this country. He can get his work done at cost price, and very mach cheaper by his own State Printing Department.

The CHAIRMAN: The sum under this Vote for the Census of Production is payable to two other Government Departments, and not to any private contractors. Therefore this correlation does not appear to me to be applicable to the Vote.

Mr. JOHNSTON: I was only seeking a guarantee from the President of the Board of Trade that he will adopt the same economy course that his colleague the Financial Secretary to the Treasury has undertaken to follow in connection with this Census of Production, where admittedly a large volume of printing is involved.

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: The statement made at the outset of the discussion of this Estimate does away with the need for me to ask some of the questions I had intended to put, but there are one or two points I would like the President to clear up for me. I have been looking again, to refresh my memory, at the Second Report of the Royal Commission on Wheat Supplies, and I submit, as has already been said by one hon. Member or this side, that we ought to be able to get to know how soon the expenditure which is charged here will be the final expenditure. On page 7 of the Second Report of the Commission we find it stated that while the voluntary agree mint, that is, the agreement with the millers—
undoubtedly had the effect of hastening the presentation of claims, difficulties still remain in connection with the disposal of claims where the basis of Excess Profits linty is still in doubt, and even now your Commissioners feel it possible there may be decisions in the High Court which may react upon settlements yet to be effected.
I would like to know whether the right hon. Gentleman is expecting any more litigation under that head. On pages and 9 of the Second Report there are statements drawing our attention to the danger—I well remember it—of heavy litigation on the question of demurrage. It was thought advisable at the time, instead of incurring heavy charges for litigation, that a compromise should be arranged, and in many cases that did happen; but in this Second Report the Commissioners also say that—
the decisions of the courts were generally adverse to the contentions urged by your Commissioners. It is understood that a number of cases still remain to be fought, and a test case is in the House of Lords.
Three cases in which your Commissioners are very much interested are awaiting the result of the case in question.
12 M.
On both the question of the assessment of profits to Excess Profits Duty and the question of demurrage I would like to know from the President whether he is expecting any further litigation of that kind, and if there will be further expenditure under this head. I should be glad, also, if he will tell me whether the staff of the Food Liquidation Department covered by this Estimate are engaged entirely upon food liquidation work. During the last fifteen months since the Food Ministry went out of existence there has been a Department of the Board of Trade dealing with the question. We have had a Royal Commission on Food Prices that went by the board. We now have a Food Council. I should like to know how far the old experienced staff are being or have been retained, and are actually giving whole or part-time service?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: On a point of Order. Surely it would not be In order to answer a question of that sort?

The CHAIRMAN: I do not think that it is out of order to ask whether the staff of the Department are engaged whole or part time.

Mr. ALEXANDER: Moreover, I put this point. It is said that so far as the liquidation work is concerned it is important to keep the people of experience. It may be so, but there are others whose services are also valuable in other directions. Therefore, I shall be glad to have information on these two points. I trust the Census of Production will be speeded up, it may help us very much the better to ascertain, in our basic industries, some of the causes of unemployment.

Mr. THURTLE: I beg to move to reduce the Vote by £100.
Before I put a question or two, I should like to enter my modest protest against business being taken at this late hour of the night. It is important, even in these days of economy, that we should scrutinise every item of public expenditure very carefully, and should bring fresh, and not jaded, minds to the task. I desire to put a question to the right
hon. Gentleman relating to Sub-head 0—Incidental Expenses. It is in connection with the Census of Production. I listened very carefully to the painstaking, courteous and comprehensive speech and explanation of the right hon. Gentleman. He did not make it clear, however, whether this expenditure was due to alterations in the scope of the Census. Is the whole or any part of this difference between the original Estimate and the actual cost of the Census due to any change in its scope? The only question I wish to put is in connection with Subhead N (Food Liquidation Department). This is an item of £5,100 for
Additional provision required to pay the salaries of staff and the expenses of legal proceedings in connection with the liquidation of the transactions of the former Food Department and Royal Commission on Wheat Supplies.
I gathered from the explanation given by the President of the Board of Trade that in the litigation which had taken place between the Government and the American packers the decision was in favour of the Government's contention. In that case how do all these legal expenses arise? Are we to take it as meaning that although the decision of the Court was in our favour each party had to pay their own costs? These costs have been incurred in connection with two Departments, the former Food Department and the Wheat Supplies Commission, and they are all jumbled together. We do not know how much of this expenditure has been incurred by the Wheat Supplies Commission, or how much is in respect of litigation in connection with the former Food Department. I would like to have some further explanation of this matter, although I am not very hopeful of receiving any reply from the President in view of the reticence he has shown during the later stages of this Debate. As a measure of precaution, however, I have moved a reduction of this Vote by £100 in order to give the right hon. Gentleman an opportunity of intervening in order to give us the legitimate information we are asking for.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I did not rise before to reply because I thought it would be more convenient for me to reply at the end of the Debate, rather than interrupt the hon. Member. The hon.
Member for Finsbury (Mr. Gillett) found some difficulty in reconciling the figures in this Estimate with the expenditure for the whole year, but in order to understand the matter it is necessary to compare these figures with those in the primary Estimate. Whereas a sum of £8,400 appeared in the original Estimate for 1924–25, the sum which was actually pent on these services in that year was £16,853. Therefore in order to make a proper comparison you have to compare this Supplementary Estimate with that figure. The number in 1924 was 34, and in October, 1925, that number had been reduced to 16. I hope that number will be considerably further reduced. In regard to the Census of Production, we have been speeding up the work and have sent out reminders and correspondence but it will not cost any more money. Speed is absolutely vital and I hope that some preliminary figures will be out in the autumn of this year. I was very much interested in the suggestion of the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Johnston) which, as I understand it, is that we should produce the figures in a simple and concise form. I do not want to discuss that now, and I do not know whether I would be in order to do so on this vote, but perhaps I might be allowed to say that the suggestion will certainly be gone into. It is not possible to say with certainty how much money we saved in the packers case, but it is reasonable to suppose that it is somewhere about the figure I gave to the Committee. As regards the settlement of the Flour Mills Control accounts and demurrage claims there are still some outstanding cases between the Inland Revenue and some of the millers on the question of excess profits. These fall to be dealt with by the Inland Revenue. I cannot make out the final account until I know whether we are to have a debit or credit on that charge. With regard to the demurrage claims these have new practically all been disposed of by the Courts. The staff I am asking for on this Vote is all required for the liquidation business. I shall of course in the Estimates for the coming year take whatever expenditure is necessary and I shall certainly be prepared to justify whatever expenditure is reasonably necessary. But I do not think it is relevant on this Estimate now. The hon. and gallant Gentleman
the Member for South Hackney (Captain Garro-Jones) asked me what were the services rendered by the Stationery Office and General Post Office.

Captain GARRO-JONES: Also what is the amount in dispute.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The amounts are the amounts set out in the Estimate—£6,400 for the Post Office and £1,200 for the Stationery Office.

Captain GARRO-JONES: The right hon. Gentleman misunderstands me. I asked him what were the amounts involved in our dispute with the Italian and French Governments.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: With regard to Italy nothing is now in dispute because they have accepted our figure.

Captain GARRO-JONES: What were the amounts in dispute?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: It would be impossible to say because the form the negotiations took was an enormous number of queries that were raised on thi accounts certified by the Comptroller and Auditor-General. With regard to the French I could not possibly say, because we have a very large number of questions raised on these itemised accounts and I do not think it would be conceivably possible, without an expenditure taking in a Supplementary Estimate and more staff, to produce the items in dispute. That obviously is so when an account running into millions is being challenged. Or the other point the service rendered by the Stationery Office is to supply the stationery we require for the Census of Production and the service rendered by the Post Office, is the postage.

Mr. MAXTON: I rise to support the reduction, and I do so with the greater pleasure because the right hon. Gentleman seems to think his asking for an extra £12,000 is a matter for flippancy and jest. Most people would have expected this to be a diminishing Vote as the years went on. It is a clearing up matter. The right hon. Gentleman, in a manner of light jest and comedy, asks for this extra £12,700, and does not indicate one penny saved on any other item of the Vote. He treats my question that is raised either as a joke or a piece of impertinence that anyone should dare to ask him a question at all. In one or other of these directions, Food Liquidation
Department, Clearing off enemy debts, Russian claims, payments in respect of restitution coming under the Treaty of Versailles, Reparations, dyes, etc., Air Raids Compensation Committee, the work oughtto be, and, I believe, is diminishing, and yet the right hon. Gentleman, with a laugh and a jest, asks for £12,000 more in a certain section of the Vote. I should be prepared to believe an addition was required in some Department, but I should certainly have expected an economy Government would have made strenuous efforts to show sonic saving under some other sub-heads. The right hon. Gentleman did none of these things and does not give a satisfactory reason even for the £12,700 extra he is asking for. Instead of treating it as a jest he should tome forward with some sense of shame and apologise to the House and the country in the responsible position I, holds for being unable to relieve the country from its crushing burdens. I hope the house will refuse to pass the Vote.

Mr. W. BAKER: I asked the right hon. Gentleman one or two questions with which he has not attempted to deal.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I thought I had dealt with all the points. Will the hon. Member say what points I missed?

Mr. BAKER: I did not hear the right hon. Gentleman make any reference to anything I said. I understand the last Census of Production prior to the War took place in 1907, and owing to the War no further census was possible until 1925–6, and no further census will take place for 10 years. In these circumstances it is a perfectly simple matter to estimate the expenses of his Department and to avoid the necessity for presenting a Supplementary Estimate. The Estimate for 1925–6 compared with that for 1924–5 showed a reduction, of £4,500.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: That is exactly the question I dealt with. I explained how we underspent in 1924–5 and both overtook and anticipated expenditure in 1925–6.

Mr. BAKER: The explanation was of such an extremely vague and general character that it was comparable to the explanation given to the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Hackney in stating that the expenditure in connect ion with the Post. Office and Stationery Office
referred to postage and stationery. That does not appeal to me as being a courteous explanation as to expenditure from the right hon. Gentleman, to whom I paid the compliment I did in opening my remarks.
There are two further questions. What has been done with the members of the staff as their services are disposed of? Are they being transferred to another section of the Board of Trade or transferred

to another Department? Will he tell us how soon he anticipates the figures in relation to the census will become available?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 188; Noes, 68.

Division No. 25.]
AYES.
[12.27 a.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Philipson, Mabel


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Pielou, D. P.


Ainsworth, Major Charles
Harrison, G. J. C.
Preston, William


Albery, Irving James
Hartington, Marquess of
Price, Major C. W. M.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Radford, E. A.


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Raine, W.


Ashmead-Bartlett, E.
Hawke, John Anthony
Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxford, Henley)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Salmon, Major I.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Herbert, S. (York, N. R. Scar. & Wh'by)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Balniel, Lord
Hills, Major John Walter
Samuel, Samuel (Wdsworth, Putney)


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Hilton, Cecil
Sandeman, A. Stewart


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Barnston, Major Sir Harry
Holt, Captain H. P.
Sandon, Lord


Bethell, A.
Homan, C. W. J.
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustavo D.


Betterton, Henry B.
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Savery, S. S.


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mol. (Renfrew, W.)


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W. R., Sowerby)


Blundell, F. N.
Howard, Captain Hon. Donald
Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Shepperson, E. W.


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Huntingfield, Lord
Skelton, A. N.


Briscoe, Richard George
Iliffe, Sir Edward M.
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon


Brittain, Sir Harry
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Jephcott, A. R.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)
Smithers, Waldron


Bullock, Captain M.
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Burman, J. B.
Knox, Sir Alfred
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Lamb, J. Q.
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.)


Campbell, E. T.
Lister, Cunliffe-. Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Little, Dr. E. Graham
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Chapman, Sir S.
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th)
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Christie, J. A.
Loder, J. de V.
Streatfeild, Captain S. R.


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Looker, Herbert William
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Cope, Major William
Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Couper, J. B.
Lumley, L. R.
Templeton, W. P.


Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
MacAndrew, Charles Glen
Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)


Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
MacDonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Curzon, Captain Viscount
MacIntyre, I.
Tinne, J. A.


Davidson, J. (Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)
McLean, Major A.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Macmillan, Captain H.
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Dawson, Sir Philip
MacRobert, Alexander M.
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Dean, Arthur Wellesley
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-
Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)


Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Eden, Captain Anthony
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Wells, S. R.


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Merriman, F. B.
White, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dalrymple


Everard, W. Lindsay
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Moles, Thomas
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Fermoy, Lord
Moore, Sir Newton J.
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Fielden, E. B.
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)


Fraser, Captain Ian
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Frece, Sir Walter de
Moreing, Captain A. H.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Wise, Sir Fredric


Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Nelson, Sir Frank
Withers, John James


Ganzoni, Sir John
Nuttall, Ellis
Womersley, W. J.


Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)
Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)


Gee, Captain R.
Pennefather, Sir John
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'ge & Hyde)


Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham
Penny, Frederick George
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Goff, Sir Park
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)



Grant, J. A.
Perkins, Colonel E. K.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Major Hennessy and Captain


Greene, W. P. Crawford
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Margesson.


NOES.


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Hayday, Arthur
Purcell, A. A.


Baker, Walter
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Riley, Ben


Barr, J.
Hirst, G. H.
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)


Batey, Joseph
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Scrymgeour, E.


Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Scurr, John


Bromfield, William
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Buchanan, G.
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Stephen, Campbell


Cape, Thomas
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Sutton, J. E.


Clowes, S.
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Taylor, R. A.


Cluse, W. S.
Kelly, W. T.
Thurtle, E.


Compton, Joseph
Kirkwood, D.
Tinker, John Joseph


Dalton, Hugh
Lansbury, George
Townend, A. E.


Day, Colonel Harry
Lindley, F. W.
Varley, Frank B.


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Lunn, William
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Fenby, T. D.
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Westwood, J.


Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Maxton James
Whiteley, W.


Gibbins, Joseph
Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Gillett, George M.
Morris, R. H.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Owen, Major G.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Paling, W.
Windsor, Walter


Grundy, T. W.
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.



Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Potts, John S.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Mr. Hayes and Mr. Warne.

Question put accordingly, "That a sum, not exceeding £12,600, be granted for the said Service."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 63; Noes, 189.

Division No. 26.]
AYES.
[12.35 a.m.


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)


Baker, Walter
Hirst, G. H.
Scrymgeour, E.


Barr, J.
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Scurr, John


Batey, Joseph
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Stephen, Campbell


Buchanan, G.
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Sutton, J. E.


Clowes, S.
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Taylor, R. A.


Compton, Joseph
Kelly, W. T.
Thurtle, E.


Dalton, Hugh
Kirkwood, D.
Tinker, John Joseph


Day, Colonel Harry
Lansbury, George
Townend, A. E.


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Lindley, F. W.
Varley, Frank B.


Fenby, T. D.
Lunn, William
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermllne)


Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Westwood J.


Gibbins, Joseph
Maxton, James
Whiteley, W.


Gillett, George M.
Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Morris, R. H.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Grenffell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Paling, W.
Windsor, Walter


Grundy, T. W.
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.



Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Potts, John S.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Hayday, Arthur
Purcell, A. A.
Mr. Hayes and Mr. Warne.


NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Brittain, Sir Harry
Dean, Arthur Wellesley


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert


Ainsworth, Major Charles
Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Eden, Captain Anthony


Albery Irving James
Bullock, Captain M.
Edmondson, Major A. J.


Amery Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Burman, J. B.
Everard, W. Lindsay


Ashley Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Burton, Colonel H. W.
Fairfax, Captain J. G.


Ashmead-Bartlett, E.
Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Fermoy, Lord


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Campbell, E. T.
Fielden, E. B.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Chadwick, Sir Robert Barton
Fraser, Captain Ian


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Chapman, Sir S.
Frece, Sir Walter de


Balniel, Lord
Christie, J. A.
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Gadie, Lieut.-Colonel Anthony


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Cope, Major William
Ganzoni, Sir John


Barnston, Major Sir Harry
Couper, J. B.
Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton


Bethell, A.
Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Gee, Captain R.


Betterton, Henry B.
Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Goff, Sir Park


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Curzon, Captain Viscount
Grant, J. A.


Blundell, F. N.
Davidson, J. (Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Greene, W. P. Crawford


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
Gunston, Captain D. W.


Briscoe, Richard George
Dawson, Sir Philip
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry


Harrison, G. J. C.
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-
Skelton, A. N.


Hartington, Marquess of
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon


Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Margesson, Captain D.
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Hawke, John Anthony
Merriman, F. B.
Smithers, Waldron


Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Moles, Thomas
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Moore, Sir Newton J.
Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.)


Herbert, S. (York, N. R., Scar. & Wh'by)
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Hills, Major John Walter
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Hilton, Cecil
Moreing, Captain A. H.
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Streatfeild, Captain S. R.


Holt, Captain H. P.
Nelson, Sir Frank
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Homan, C. W. J.
Nuttall, Ellis
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)
Templeton, W. P.


Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Owen, Major G.
Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)


Hopkins, J. W. W.
Pennefather, Sir John
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Howard, Captain Hon. Donald
Penny, Frederick George
Tinne, J. A.


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Huntingfield, Lord
Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Vaughan-Margan, Col. K. P.


Iliffe, Sir Edward M.
Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Jephcott, A. R.
Philipson, Mabel
Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)


Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Pielou, D. P.
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)
Preston, William
Wells, S. R.


King, Captain Henry Douglas
Price, Major C. W. M.
White, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dalrymple


Knox, Sir Alfred
Radford, E. A.
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Lamb, J. Q.
Raine, W.
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)


Little, Dr. E. Graham
Salmon, Major I.
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Windsor-Clive. Lieut.-Colonel George


Loder, J. de V.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Wise, Sir Fredric


Looker, Herbert William
Sandeman, A. Stewart
Withers, John James


Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Sanders, Sir Robert A.
Womersley, W. J.


Lumley, L. R.
Sandon, Lord
Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)


MacAndrew, Charles Glen
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'ge & Hyde)


Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Savery, S. S.
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


MacIntyre, Ian
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. McI. (Renfrew, W.)



McLean, Major A.
Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W. R., Sowerby)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Macmillan, Captain H.
Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)
Mr. Frederick Thomson and Lord


McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John
Shepperson, E. W.
Stanley.


MacRobert, Alexander M.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE - LISTER: claimed, "That the Original Question be now put."

Original Question put accordingly.

The Committee divided: Ayes, 188; Noes, 62.

Division No. 27.]
AYES.
[12.43 a.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Couper, J. B.
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)


Ainsworth, Major Charles
Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Hawke, John Anthony


Albery, Irving James
Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Henderson, Capt, R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Curzon, Captain Viscount
Henn, Sir Sydney H.


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Davidson, J. (Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.


Ashmead-Bartlett, E.
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Herbert, S. (York, N. R., Scar. & Wh'by)


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
Hills, Major John Walter


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Dawson, Sir Philip
Hilton, Cecil


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Dean, Arthur Wellesley
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)


Balniel, Lord
Dixey, A. C.
Holt, Captain H. P.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Eden, Captain Anthony
Homan, C. W. J.


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)


Betterton, Henry B.
Everard, W. Lindsay
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)


Bethell, A.
Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Hopkins, J. W. W.


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Fermoy, Lord
Howard, Captain Hon. Donald


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Fielden, E. B.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)


Blundell, F. N.
Fraser, Captain Ian
Huntingfield, Lord


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Frece, Sir Walter de
Iliffe Sir Edward M.


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.


Briscoe, Richard George
Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Jephcott, A. R.


Brittain, Sir Harry
Ganzoni, Sir John
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton
Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Gee, Captain R.
King, Captain Henry Douglas


Bullock, Captain M.
Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham
Knox, Sir Alfred


Burman, J. B.
Goff, Sir Park
Lamb, J. Q.


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Grant, J. A.
Lane, Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip


Campbell, E. T.
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Little, Dr. E. Graham


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th)


Chapman, Sir S.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Loder, J. de V.


Christie, J. A.
Harrison, G. J. C.
Looker, Herbert William


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Hartington, Marquess of
Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman


Lumley, L. R.
Preston, William
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


MacAndrew, Charles Glen
Price, Major C. W. M.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Radford, E. A.
Templeton, W. P.


MacIntyre, Ian
Raine, W.
Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)


McLean, Major A.
Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Macmillan, Captain H.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John
Salmon, Major I.
Tinne, J. A.


MacRobert, Alexander M.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Sandeman, A. Stewart
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Margesson, Captain D.
Sanders, Sir Robert A.
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Merriman, F. B.
Sandon, Lord
Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)


Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Moles, Thomas
Savery, S. S.
Wells, S. R.


Moore, Sir Newton J.
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. McI. (Renfrew, W.)
White, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dalrymple


Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W. R., Sowerby)
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Moore-Brabzon, Lieut.-Cot. J. T. C.
Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Moreing, Captain A. H.
Shepperson, E. W.
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Skelton, A. N.
Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)


Nelson, Sir Frank
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Nuttall, Ellis
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kine'dine, C.)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)
Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Wise, Sir Fredric


Owen, Major G.
Smithers, Waldron
Withers, John James


Pennefather, Sir John
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Womersley, W. J.


Penny, Frederick George
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.
Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)


Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'ge & Hyde)


Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.)
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)



Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Steel, Major Samuel Strang
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Philipson, Mabel
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.
Sir Harry Barnston and Major


Pielou, D. P.
Streatfeild, Captain S. R.
Cope.


NOES.


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Scrymgeour, E.


Baker, Walter
Hirst, G. H.
Scurr, John


Barr, J.
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Batey, Joseph
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Stephen, Campbell


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Sutton, J. E.


Buchanan, G.
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Taylor, R. A.


Clowes, S.
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Thurtle, E.


Compton, Joseph
Kelly, W. T.
Tinker, John Joseph


Dalton, Hugh
Kirkwood, D.
Townend, A. E.


Day, Colonel Harry
Lansbury, George
Varley, Frank B.


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Lindley, F. W.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Fenby, T. D.
Lunn, William
Westwood, J.


Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Maclean, Nall (Glasgow, Govan)
Whiteley, W.


Gibbins, Joseph
Maxton, James
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Gillett, George M.
Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Morris, R. H.
Windsor, Walter


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Paling, W.
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Grundy, T. W.
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)



Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Potts, John S.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Purcell, A. A.
Mr. Hayes and Mr. Warne.


Hayday, Arthur
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)

Resolutions to be reported To-morrow Committee to sit again To-morrow.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

It being after Half-past Eleven of the Clock upon Tuesday evening, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Five Minutes before One o'clock.